Re: [Ltru] Status of RFC 4645bis

Doug Ewell scripsit:

> >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.

The comment can be an ordinary one at the subtag level.  For example,
since we know that az is multi-script, we could add a Comment: field to
it saying "Comment:  Multi-script language, no Suppress-Script possible."
That makes it a matter for ietf-languages.

-- 
My confusion is rapidly waxing          John Cowan
For XML Schema's too taxing:            cowan@ccil.org
    I'd use DTDs                        http://www.ccil.org/~cowan
    If they had local trees --
I think I best switch to RELAX NG.

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