Unifon script?

[Peter Constable]

This brings up an issue that seems at least as interesting as the language prefix issue: this variant implies (or should imply) Latn script, but we don't have a good mechanism to capture that. This isn't a new scenario, though ? the same would apply to the fonipa variant subtag, for instance. A prefix field, per the current rules, must contain a valid tag; it can't have a language range like "*-Latn".

Related, I don't recall if we ever discussed a potential interaction with suppress script: if the variant implies a particular script, then a script subtag adds no additional information ? e.g. "en-Latin-unifon" would be no more informative than "en-unifon". That's the kind of situation for which suppress-script was added. But adding a suppress-script field to a variant entry is not currently allowed.


Peter

Sent from Windows Mail

From: Michael Everson<mailto:everson at evertype.com>
Sent: ?Sunday?, ?September? ?15?, ?2013 ?11?:?20? ?AM
To: ietf-languages at iana.org<mailto:ietf-languages at iana.org>

On 15 Sep 2013, at 18:31, Doug Ewell <doug at ewellic.org> wrote:

> It's also worth mentioning that script subtags cannot be added to the Language Subtag Registry unless the corresponding ISO 15924 code element already exists (RFC 5646, Section 2.2.3). Since there is currently no ISO 15924 code element for Unifon, it's not a question of whether a variant subtag is the best way to go; it's the only way to go.

The code element is Latn.

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

_______________________________________________
Ietf-languages mailing list
Ietf-languages at alvestrand.no
http://www.alvestrand.no/mailman/listinfo/ietf-languages
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://www.alvestrand.no/pipermail/ietf-languages/attachments/20130928/e80bcfb0/attachment.html>