petercon at microsoft.com
Wed Oct 2 03:12:45 CEST 2013
On the contrary, I was suggesting that if LSTR included fields to tell us that a tag that has 'fonipa' or 'fonupa' implies Latin script (a bit like the suppress-script field in terms of its semantic implications, but for variants), then I think that would be helpful.
If I see "en-fonipa", then the 'en' subtag has the suppress-script field that tells me that 'Latn' can be assumed. But if I see "huy-fonipa", nothing in the LSTR tells me that. Yet that would be an equally appropriate assumption.
From: Doug Ewell [mailto:doug at ewellic.org]
Sent: October 1, 2013 12:21 PM
To: ietf-languages at iana.org
Cc: Peter Constable
Subject: Re: Unifon script?
Peter Constable <petercon at microsoft dot com> wrote:
> We can certainly "know" that unifon implies Latin script, but having
> that in the LSTR would have been helpful.
Peter, would you propose having a mechanism that strongly encourages users of 'fonipa' and 'fonupa' and 'fonxsamp' to include the 'Latn'
script subtag as well? (Prefixes can only "strongly encourage"; they can't enforce.)
RFC 5646 recommends keeping tags short, and specifically avoiding unnecessary script subtags (Section 4.1). There's still one day left before the 'unifon' subtag was to be submitted to IANA. We could add a Comments field saying that Unifon is a Latin-based orthography, and for that matter, could also add such a comment to the other subtags listed above. That would cause this sort of information to be embedded in the Registry, but not in subtags.
Doug Ewell | Thornton, CO, USA
http://ewellic.org | @DougEwell
More information about the Ietf-languages