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

Peter Constable petercon at
Thu Oct 21 06:11:24 CEST 2010

The implementations serve a variety of purposes. That can include populating http accept-language headers, which I think qualifies under your criterion.


-----Original Message-----
From: ietf-languages-bounces at [mailto:ietf-languages-bounces at] On Behalf Of Doug Ewell
Sent: Wednesday, October 20, 2010 8:56 PM
To: ietf-languages at
Subject: Re: suppress-script values for fil, mi, pes, prs, qu members

Peter Constable <petercon at microsoft dot com> wrote:

> How have I not shown actual need?
> I've identified a set of languages without s-s fields for which ll-CC 
> (e.g. quz-PE) tags _are_ in use in _real_ implementations, hence 
> setting up exactly the same conditions for these languages that made 
> the compelling case to create all the existing s-s fields.
> I've pointed out that we are working on _real_ implementations that 
> need to be able to compare tags of the form ll with tags of the form 
> ll-Ssss (e.g. quz and quz-Latn), or tags of the form ll-CC and tags of 
> the form ll-Ssss-CC or ll-Ssss (e.g. quz-PE and quz-Latn-PE or 
> quz-Latn).

If these "real implementations" are for identifying and searching linguistic content, then I think the proposed S-S values are probably a good idea and "support" them (for whatever that's worth).  If they are for determining keyboard layouts and font assignments and "binding to locale data" — none of which is what the Registry is for, IMHO — then I think they are probably not.

Either way, I will do whatever clerk work is needed, though strictly speaking, Section 3.5 tends to imply that the requester should bear much of the brunt.

Doug Ewell | Thornton, Colorado, USA | RFC 5645, 4645, UTN #14 | ietf-languages @ is dot gd slash 2kf0s ­ 

Ietf-languages mailing list
Ietf-languages at

More information about the Ietf-languages mailing list