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

[Michael Everson]

On 21 Oct 2010, at 01:38, Peter Constable wrote:

>> 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.

"And I'm not  concerned that would be onerous were it to happen." reads differently to me. Sorry, I guess.

>> 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.

So why did you suggest that we consider two score other varieties?

> 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.

Then why not revise the whole standard and do the job properly for all of the languages? 

But I disagree anyway. If there isn't a script issue, there isn't a script issue. The unadorned tag should do just fine even without s-s.

Michael Everson * http://www.evertype.com/