Wolof suppress script

Doug Ewell doug at ewellic.org
Sun Sep 19 21:26:29 CEST 2010

Peter Constable <petercon at microsoft dot com> wrote:

>   3. Record Requested:
>      Type: language
>      Subtag: wo
>      Description: Wolof
>      Comments: orthographies in Latin and Arabic scripts
>   6. Any other relevant information: When the subtag registry was 
> initialized, the record was added with a suppress-script field set to 
> Latn. However, there is an Arabic-script orthography for Wolof, in 
> addition to a Latin orthography. Since a suppress-script is intended 
> to be used in cases in which a single script is used "to write the 
> overwhelming majority of documents for the given language", it is 
> inappropriate for this field to be used for Wolof.

I'm OK with the lengthy justification in item 6, but I would not have 
thought it necessary to include a Comments field in the Registry to 
explain why a language subtag does *not* have a Suppress-Script.

S-S is informative, it is only a suggestion, it is based on incomplete 
and non-scientific data, and if it is felt that a given language is not 
overwhelmingly written in a given script and we should remove the value, 
then we should remove it and be done with it.

Likewise, if we decided that some other language *is* overwhelmingly 
written in one script and *should* have S-S and we simply missed it, we 
should add it and be done with it, with no comment to justify our 

Doug Ewell | Thornton, Colorado, USA | http://www.ewellic.org
RFC 5645, 4645, UTN #14 | ietf-languages @ is dot gd slash 2kf0s ­

More information about the Ietf-languages mailing list