RE: [Ltru] Suppress-Script (was: Re: Status of RFC 4645bis)

Hi,

<broken record on>
The fundamental problem is NOT the "Suppress-Script" kludge.

The fundamental problem is that Script tags were unwisely
allowed into language tags at all - they will continue to
make for surprising results to real users for the indefinite
future at a thoroughly dubious gain in functionality.
<broken record off>

We've wrestled in the printing industry quite a bit with
how to cope with script subtags - and the clear concensus
is that we'll ban their use entirely in printing protocols.
We have a perfectly good pre-existing separate metadata
element for specifying script - print spoolers will simply
silently delete script subtags from received language tags.

Cheers,
- Ira

Ira McDonald (Musician / Software Architect)
Chair - Linux Foundation Open Printing WG
Blue Roof Music / High North Inc
PO Box 221  Grand Marais, MI  49839
phone: +1-906-494-2434
email: imcdonald@sharplabs.com

-----Original Message-----
From: Frank Ellermann [mailto:nobody@xyzzy.claranet.de]
Sent: Wednesday, March 21, 2007 11:51 AM
To: ltru@lists.ietf.org
Subject: [Ltru] Suppress-Script (was: Re: Status of RFC 4645bis)

Doug Ewell wrote:

> There is a problem in general with Suppress-Script, but I contend
> it is a problem best discussed in the main process document (RFC
> 4646bis) and not in the document that delivers the Registry and
> outlines the rules for creating it (RFC 4645bis).

Depends, if we decide to do some bulk update (again) 4645bis should
state how that was done.

> the field is present only for a sampling of languages for which an
> "overwhelmingly used" script could be determined with little or no
> controversy.

The "overhelmingly used" is its purpose for compatibility with older
or naive applications.

>> 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.

In theory we could assign a meaning to empty Suppress-Script fields.

> There is no provision in the syntax of the Registry to add file-level
> comments, though it was suggested during LTRU 1.0.

I think Martin's idea was in the direction of per record comments,
an "empty" Suppress-Script field could mean "intentionally void".

Frank

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

-- 
No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Version: 7.5.446 / Virus Database: 268.18.16/729 - Release Date: 3/21/2007 7:52 AM

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