Re: [Ltru] Clarifying Suppress-Script

I am pulled in different directions on this. What people should do when
tagging is inexorably linked with what implementers should do when
interpreting tags. If there is a mismatch in expectations, then we get
problems.

What I as an implementer want to know is: when I see xxx-YY and xxx-ZZZZ-YY,
what am I to do?

   1. Do I treat these as essentially synonyms for filtering and lookup?
   (eg en-US and en-Latn-US)
   2. Do I treat them as completely different for filtering and lookup
   (eg ru-RU and ru-Latn-RU, or zh-CN and zh-Latn-CN)
   3. Do I treat them as different for filtering, but as synonyms for
   lookup (eg zh-CN and zh-Hans-CN, or zh-TW and zh-Hant-TW)

On the one hand, Suppress Script, as discussed before, is a very imperfect
tool: it doesn't tell me about case 3, and it is ambiguous -- being missing
could mean that there are multiple common scripts for a language, or could
mean that there is no information available.

On the other hand, whether or not the language code was pre or post 4646
doesn't seem to make much difference as far as the question of what I should
do when interpreting these codes, so it seems from that that we should not
make Suppress-Script depend on pre or post 4646.

Mark

On 10/4/07, McDonald, Ira <imcdonald@sharplabs.com> wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> I object to this whole paragraph.  Because RFC 4646
> *inserted* scripts between the two previously main
> subtags (language and region), Suppress-Script is
> necessary for MANY languages tagged in the future.
> It has nothing to do with an existing body of tagged
> material.
>
> Cheers,
> - Ira
>
>
> Ira McDonald (Musician / Software Architect)
> Chair - Linux Foundation Open Printing WG
> Blue Roof Music / High North Inc
> PO Box 221  Grand Marais, MI  49839
> phone: +1-906-494-2434
> email: imcdonald@sharplabs.com
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: John Cowan [mailto:cowan@ccil.org]
> Sent: Wednesday, October 03, 2007 7:35 PM
> To: Randy Presuhn
> Cc: LTRU Working Group
> Subject: Re: [Ltru] Clarifying Suppress-Script
>
>
> Randy Presuhn scripsit:
>
> >   Suppress-Script is a compatibility measure, and as such is
> >   only appropriate for languages whose subtags were added to
> >    the registry before RFC 4646 was approved.
>
> +1
>
> >   Even for such
> >   languages, Supress-Script SHOULD NOT be used unless there
> >   exists a significant body (as determined by the Language
> >   Subtag Reviewer) of material tagged before the approval of
> >   RFC 4646 without a script subtag.
>
> Neither the LSR nor anyone else (not even people who work for
> search-engine companies) is in a position to make any such determination.
> Not all tagged material is open to public scrutiny.  I am therefore
> opposed to adding this sentence.
>
> --
> With techies, I've generally found              John Cowan
> If your arguments lose the first round          http://www.ccil.org/~cowan
>     Make it rhyme, make it scan                 cowan@ccil.org
>     Then you generally can
> Make the same stupid point seem profound!           --Jonathan Robie
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Ltru mailing list
> Ltru@ietf.org
> https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ltru
>
> No virus found in this outgoing message.
> Checked by AVG Free Edition.
> Version: 7.5.488 / Virus Database: 269.14.0/1049 - Release Date: 10/4/2007
> 8:59 AM
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Ltru mailing list
> Ltru@ietf.org
> https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ltru
>

-- 
Mark