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

Peter Constable petercon at
Thu Oct 21 02:38:21 CEST 2010

From: ietf-languages-bounces at [mailto:ietf-languages-bounces at] On Behalf Of Michael Everson

> 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. 

I didn't say I didn't give a fig about its onerousness; I said I didn't think we're likely to get an onerous body of work to review.

> 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? 

Actually, MS localizes into quz. 

I'm not raising this simply for tidiness sake. In fact, some of your replies to me have actually been making a case to do what I suggest: 

PC >> If there isn't a script issue, then indeed language tags without script subtags should be completely reasonable.

ME> No. Completely redundant and unnecessary.

The way that the registry effects making script subtags redundant and unnecessary is to include s-s fields.


More information about the Ietf-languages mailing list