Re: [Ltru] Status of RFC 4645bis

Martin Hosken <martin underscore hosken at sil dot org> wrote:

> OK I'll take a go (I couldn't find bis-02 only bis-01 so I'll talk 
> about that).

You're right, -01 is the version most recently submitted.

> My main point is that there are lots of suppress scripts missing.

There is a problem in general with Suppress-Script, but I contend it is 
a problem best discussed in the main process document (RFC 4646bis) and 
not in the document that delivers the Registry and outlines the rules 
for creating it (RFC 4645bis).

The problem, as you state and as Frank Ellermann has stated roughly 
4,646 times, is that by providing such a field, users will expect it to 
be correctly and authoritatively populated all of the time.  This is 
something ietf-languages has (IMHO) neither the time nor the expertise 
to do.  Instead, the field is present only for a sampling of languages 
for which an "overwhelmingly used" script could be determined with 
little or no controversy.  Proposals to add others are welcome at 
ietf-languages.

The gap between expectation and reality here is one of the reasons I 
opposed Suppress-Script in the first place.

> Here are a few that spring out at me:
>
> ko -> Hang
>
> This is a biggy I would suspect.

I thought so too, for a long time, and studied this a year ago to try to 
prove it.  I read books, scanned newspapers, and talked to native Korean 
speakers.  What I found was that, although Hangul is by far the most 
common script for writing Korean (maybe even "overwhelmingly"), there is 
noticeable use of hanja is certain contexts: scientific works, personal 
names, newpaper headlines (to resolve ambiguities), and a few others. 
There is also an important tradition that hanja is part of the Korean 
cultural experience, so that even if Hangul is overwhelmingly used, the 
"controversy" factor applies here.  I went in firmly believing that this 
Suppress-Script should be added, and came away believing it should not, 
which I think is significant.

> The following I'm not so sure about.
>
> bm -> Latn
> ...

See above.  The correct place to propose these is ietf-languages.

> Hmm I'll stop there. I wonder if it might be helpful to put some kind 
> of comment into the registry to say either that the decision has been 
> made that this language has no suppress script (because more than one 
> is used) or that no decision has been made as to whether this language 
> has a suppress script or not until they've all been decided on.

Again, I believe the place for such a comment is in RFC 4646bis.  There 
is no provision in the syntax of the Registry to add file-level 
comments, though it was suggested during LTRU 1.0.

--
Doug Ewell  *  Fullerton, California, USA  *  RFC 4645  *  UTN #14
http://users.adelphia.net/~dewell/
http://www1.ietf.org/html.charters/ltru-charter.html
http://www.alvestrand.no/mailman/listinfo/ietf-languages

_______________________________________________
Ltru mailing list
Ltru@ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ltru