suppress-script values for fil, mi, pes, prs, qu members

Michael Everson everson at
Thu Oct 21 01:14:24 CEST 2010

On 20 Oct 2010, at 21:16, Peter Constable wrote:

> From: ietf-languages-bounces at [mailto:ietf-languages-bounces at] On Behalf Of Michael Everson
>> I assure you that adding 50 new s-s tags would be onerous. That's 
>> 100 separate e-mails, and no, I can't "script" it and automate it. 
> That sounds tantamount to saying that you're not willing to do the job of LST reviewer.


My role as reviewer has to do with linguistic judgement. 

> Anybody at any time could come with 50 or 500 requests to add s-s fields to language records or any number of other changes in the registry; nothing in RFC 5646 prevents that. If they do, then the responsibility you have signed up for is to process those requests.

That does not mean that it is not needlessly onerous or difficult or tiresome to actually DO. Your comment, that you didn't give a fig about its onerousness, was rather churlish. 

Frankly I don't see a case for adding s-s Latin to a bunch of Quechua varieties just for tidiness' sake. Even if your company localizes into qu, is it localizing into 47 sub-varieties? So far you have not demonstrated urgency for this. Or a genuine reason. Wolof had a genuine reason not to have an s-s. 

Michael Everson *

More information about the Ietf-languages mailing list