Re: [Ltru] Clarifying Suppress-Script
"Randy Presuhn" <randy_presuhn@mindspring.com> Thu, 04 October 2007 17:39 UTC
Return-path: <ltru-bounces@ietf.org>
Received: from [127.0.0.1] (helo=stiedprmman1.va.neustar.com) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1IdUfE-0004uD-CO; Thu, 04 Oct 2007 13:39:08 -0400
Received: from ltru by megatron.ietf.org with local (Exim 4.43) id 1IdUfA-0004jr-Ip for ltru-confirm+ok@megatron.ietf.org; Thu, 04 Oct 2007 13:39:04 -0400
Received: from [10.90.34.44] (helo=chiedprmail1.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1IdUf9-0004cm-Kl for ltru@ietf.org; Thu, 04 Oct 2007 13:39:03 -0400
Received: from elasmtp-dupuy.atl.sa.earthlink.net ([209.86.89.62]) by chiedprmail1.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1IdUf9-0007hT-7h for ltru@ietf.org; Thu, 04 Oct 2007 13:39:03 -0400
DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws; s=dk20050327; d=mindspring.com; b=S64xG7fu9DIMa7AdBqrLc31t+vEQvyIOMCbIaZNdoeYOwnOYvLpF9RT0fqqgQ2oV; h=Received:Message-ID:From:To:References:Subject:Date:MIME-Version:Content-Type:Content-Transfer-Encoding:X-Priority:X-MSMail-Priority:X-Mailer:X-MimeOLE:X-ELNK-Trace:X-Originating-IP;
Received: from [64.105.35.175] (helo=oemcomputer) by elasmtp-dupuy.atl.sa.earthlink.net with asmtp (Exim 4.34) id 1IdUf8-0007ls-KB for ltru@ietf.org; Thu, 04 Oct 2007 13:39:02 -0400
Message-ID: <002f01c806ae$01bb7e00$6801a8c0@oemcomputer>
From: Randy Presuhn <randy_presuhn@mindspring.com>
To: LTRU Working Group <ltru@ietf.org>
References: <20071004003443.GA27520@mercury.ccil.org> <FCC7D7D1DB94054EB491EED9D274727D030FC3@wabex2.sharpamericas.com> <30b660a20710041006h4eba1458kef8819719dd7f51e@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [Ltru] Clarifying Suppress-Script
Date: Thu, 04 Oct 2007 10:42:59 -0700
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Priority: 3
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2800.1478
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1478
X-ELNK-Trace: 4488c18417c9426da92b9037bc8bcf44d4c20f6b8d69d888a4beb055f130b31abdf4ad766b6b1be47be454d50beb5aac350badd9bab72f9c350badd9bab72f9c
X-Originating-IP: 64.105.35.175
X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/)
X-Scan-Signature: a7d6aff76b15f3f56fcb94490e1052e4
X-BeenThere: ltru@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5
Precedence: list
List-Id: Language Tag Registry Update working group discussion list <ltru.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ltru>, <mailto:ltru-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www1.ietf.org/pipermail/ltru>
List-Post: <mailto:ltru@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ltru-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ltru>, <mailto:ltru-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
Errors-To: ltru-bounces@ietf.org
Hi - As a technical contributor... > From: "Mark Davis" <mark.davis@icu-project.org> > To: "McDonald, Ira" <imcdonald@sharplabs.com> > Cc: "John Cowan" <cowan@ccil.org>; "Randy Presuhn" <randy_presuhn@mindspring.com>; "LTRU Working Group" <ltru@ietf.org> > Sent: Thursday, October 04, 2007 10:06 AM > Subject: Re: [Ltru] Clarifying Suppress-Script ... > 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. ... As I recall, we added Suppress-Script because there was a large body of already-tagged material which lacked script subtags, and we wanted to be able to process that material as though it had been given script subtags. In this context, suppress-script is only meaningful for coping with such material. Somewhere along the way, the language in what became RFC 4646 got a bit stronger, eventually ending up as "5. There MUST be at most one script subtag in a language tag, and the script subtag SHOULD be omitted when it adds no distinguishing value to the tag or when the primary language subtag's record includes a Suppress-Script field listing the applicable script subtag." This is still OK with me, but... There seems to be a bit of semantic drift in the understanding of "Suppress- Script", from its original meaning as a legacy data compatibility kluge to a way of indicating for a particular language that a script subtag would probably not add "distinguishing value". It's clear from this discussion that not all of us (myself included) have made such a shift. If we as a WG want to adopt such a semantic shift, we should do so consciously and explicitly, because it has a dramatic impact on the number of languages for which the ietf-languages@iana.org list will have to debate the merits of adding this information to the registry. Randy _______________________________________________ Ltru mailing list Ltru@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ltru
- [Ltru] Clarifying Suppress-Script Randy Presuhn
- Re: [Ltru] Clarifying Suppress-Script John Cowan
- RE: [Ltru] Clarifying Suppress-Script McDonald, Ira
- Re: [Ltru] Clarifying Suppress-Script Mark Davis
- Re: [Ltru] Clarifying Suppress-Script Randy Presuhn
- Re: [Ltru] Clarifying Suppress-Script Mark Davis
- Re: [Ltru] Clarifying Suppress-Script John Cowan
- RE: [Ltru] Clarifying Suppress-Script Martin Duerst
- Re: [Ltru] Clarifying Suppress-Script John Cowan
- [Ltru] Re: Clarifying Suppress-Script Frank Ellermann