Re: [Ietf-languages] Suggestion to update Urdu Script Designation in the subtag registry

Mark

On Thu, Aug 13, 2020 at 10:53 AM Doug Ewell <doug@ewellic.org> wrote:

> For some of the styling scenarios Peter describes, I could imagine
> creating a BCP 47 extension, so taggers could write something like
> "fr-s-plaincap" or "fr-s-accntcap".
>
> For the OP’s original scenario of Urdu in Nastaliq, I don’t have any issue
> with specifying “ur-Aran” when the choice of a Nastaliq font is considered
> important, especially since 'Aran' already exists.

It is certainly legal to specify ur-Aran. However, as I remarked before, I
don't think it will accomplish what Daniel would intend with it — and in
the worst case could cause very significant degradation in quality (such a
request for a localized data for ur-Aran actually returning English
instead, even though ur is available).

If people don't understand the ramifications of using variant script tags,
they definitely shouldn't be using them.

> It's just not what Suppress-Script is for.
>

Definitely agreed.

> --
> Doug Ewell | Thornton, CO, US | ewellic.org
>
>
> From: Ietf-languages <ietf-languages-bounces@ietf.org> On Behalf Of Peter
> Constable
> Sent: Thursday, August 13, 2020 10:30
> To: r12a <ishida@w3.org>; ietf-languages@ietf.org
> Subject: Re: [Ietf-languages] Suggestion to update Urdu Script Designation
> in the subtag registry
>
> If typographic styles are to be indicated in a tag that is primarily
> intended to declare the _language_ of content, then what are the limits to
> that?
>
> For some languages written with Latin script, certain styles of fonts are
> preferred. For example, the Puyallup nature just south of where I live use
> fonts with a distinctive style. Should Puyallup content be marked up with a
> tag that includes something indicating that distinct style? If another
> language doesn’t normally use the Puyallup style fonts but some documents
> do, should those documents be tagged to indicate that style?
>
> Or within a single language, there may be different typographic
> preferences. I’m sure you’re familiar with issues regarding accented
> capitals in French: one convention allows for them, while another
> convention would never have accented capitals. Do we need variant subtags
> to indicate such distinctions? Or take this a step further: there are lots
> of Latin ligatures that _could_ be used in a document but aren’t required.
> Should language tags reflect levels of ligation that are used?
>
> Certainly there are stylistic preferences associated with some languages,
> such as Nastaliq for Urdu. (Mind, I suspect Urdu speakers wouldn’t expect
> or want a Nastaliq font to be used for UI strings on a phone.) I could
> perhaps see some benefit in having a way to qualify fonts for such
> distinctions, and to capture that language/style association as a default
> in something like CLDR. But aside from characterizing font resources, it’s
> not clear to me where is it would be beneficial to use ‘Aran’, either in a
> language tag or some other context.
>
>
> Peter
>
> _______________________________________________
> Ietf-languages mailing list
> Ietf-languages@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf-languages
>