suppress-script values for fil, mi, pes, prs, qu members
petercon at microsoft.com
Thu Oct 21 02:38:21 CEST 2010
From: ietf-languages-bounces at alvestrand.no [mailto:ietf-languages-bounces at alvestrand.no] 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