[Ltru] Re: Non-Latin-1 Description fields in RFC 4645bis

Addison Phillips wrote:

> Actually, I favor leaving the text alone.

The MUST would force the language review list to outsmart the
source standards if they happen to provide no "Latin de jour"
description.

It also forces the language review list to invent some kind
of "Latin transliteration" for variants, and I'm pretty sure
that this ends up as some <jfc> Anglosaxon </jfc> gibberish,
more or less pointless for the rest of the world.

> We can discuss what it means for 4645bis purposes

The TUS concept of "Latin" means nothing for registry users.
A bunch of "unsupported glyph" squares, worse than visible
Cyril.  I've no idea why one source uses u+02BB which is
annotated as Hawaian in TUS, but used for Ethiopian in the
registry.  I only care to know that it is u+02BB, and the
old NCR format managed this directly, for the new UTF-8
hell I'd need a decoder (in that case Doug did it for me)

> It might turn out that this paragraph actually means 
> "US-ASCII7" in practice.

Unlike Latin "US-ASCII" is at least a clearly defined set,
no moving target always ahead of really deployed fonts.

I'd be much more impressed if at least one description
for "registered languages" and variants MUST be in the
native language used by the corresponding community,
not only <jfc> Anglosaxon </jfc> "Latin".

 Frank

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