Re: [Ltru] Clarifying Suppress-Script

I agree that we need to have clearer language, whichever way we go. As I
said, I'm not sure of the right answer; I could see going either direction.

Mark

On 10/4/07, Randy Presuhn <randy_presuhn@mindspring.com> wrote:
>
> 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
>

-- 
Mark