Unifon script?

[CE Whitehead]

Hi.
Doug Ewell 
    doug at ewellic.org
       

    Mon Sep 23 20:11:37 CEST 2013
    
      

> CE Whitehead <cewcathar at hotmail dot com> wrote:

>>> The code element is Latn.
>>
>> I'm sorry that I'm confused; is Michael saying that [en-Latn],
>>> [hup-Latn], etc. should be listed in the prefix fields for the variant
>> [unifon]?

> He was responding concretely to my abstract point that script subtags
> cannot be added directly by user request to the Language Subtag Registry
> (they can only be added if an ISO 15924 code element is added first).
> Michael's response was that no ISO 15924 code element needs to be added
> for Unifon, because it is a Latin variant.

>> ([unifon] is  similar I would guess, and as you all have said, to
>> [fonipa]; I'm not sure what Doug is saying but more prefix fields can
>> be added later;  prefixes can also be removed later I understand, so
>> long as you remove them all; also, for example, if you have registered
>> a prefix [en-Latn], you can remove [Latn], making the prefix just
>> [en]; [fonipa] as we registered it, has no prefix requirements)

> This must be about something John Cowan said. The only thing I said
> about Prefix fields is where they should be canonically placed within
> the record.

> --
> Doug Ewell | Thornton, CO, USA
> http://ewellic.org | @DougEwell ­


I was asking was whether or not it would be wise or even necesasry to also use the prefixes [en-Latn] , etc., and whether doing so would in any way affect matching (given that the default script for these languages is in all cases [Latn] anyway)?  

I was also attempting to reiterate what's in RFC 5646, that in the future more languages could be added as prefixes, or alternately the prefix could be removed altogether; however no single language prefix could be deleted from the list.

In any case, the current registration request, as you all have revised it, looks great (-: 

Best,

--C. E. Whitehead
cewcathar at hotmail.com

 		 	   		  
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://www.alvestrand.no/pipermail/ietf-languages/attachments/20130927/160b885e/attachment.html>