Re: [Ltru] Status of RFC 4645bis

Dear Doug,
> Since posting draft-ietf-ltru-4645bis-02, the only comments I've
> received about the draft or its proposed contents (other than the hex
> NCRs, which are an RFC 4646bis issue) were from Debbie, who mentioned
> some minor wording changes that I'm waiting for specifics on.
>
> Does this mean everyone loves the draft and feels it's about ready to
> go?  The ISO 639-3 folks have been updating their data files in
> response to the issues I raised, and apparently the standard is ready
> to be published, possibly by the end of this month, so I'd like to
> prepare a draft-03 that would be ready for WG Last Call.  Please send
> any comments.

OK I'll take a go (I couldn't find bis-02 only bis-01 so I'll talk about
that). My main point is that there are lots of suppress scripts missing.
Here are a few that spring out at me:

ko -> Hang

This is a biggy I would suspect. The following I'm not so sure about.

bm -> Latn
bo -> Tibt (?)
br -> Latn
ee -> Latn
fy -> Latn
gd -> Latn
ha -> Latn
ig -> Latn

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.

Yours,
Martin

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