Subject: Re: [Ietf-languages] ISO 639-3 changes, part 5

From: "Doug Ewell" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 20 Feb 2018 16:45:45 -0700

Shawn Steele wrote:

> Does tlh require a script? Eg: tlh-Latn or tlh-Piqd?

Any time there is a reasonable likelihood of a language being written in
more than one script, none of which is the obvious default (as Latin is
for English), it is reasonable to include a script subtag. RFC 5646
explains this much more clearly.

If you're asking whether the record for 'tlh' should have a
Suppress-Script field, I would say it should not. Remember that
Suppress-Script is meant to discourage users from reflexively including
script subtags for languages with an obvious default script, when the
language subtag was in common use before the RFC 4646 era.

Note that the record for 'tlh' is not new; only the secondary name is
being changed (slightly).

--
Doug Ewell | Thornton, CO, US | ewellic.org

---

From: Shawn Steele <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 21 Feb 2018 00:05:59 +0000

That's what I'd expect, just checking :)

-----Original Message-----
From: Doug Ewell <[email-masked]> 
Sent: Tuesday, February 20, 2018 3:46 PM
To: Shawn Steele <[email-masked]>; ietf-languages <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: [Ietf-languages] ISO 639-3 changes, part 5

> Does tlh require a script? Eg: tlh-Latn or tlh-Piqd?

Any time there is a reasonable likelihood of a language being written in more than one script, none of which is the obvious default (as Latin is for English), it is reasonable to include a script subtag. RFC 5646 explains this much more clearly.

If you're asking whether the record for 'tlh' should have a Suppress-Script field, I would say it should not. Remember that Suppress-Script is meant to discourage users from reflexively including script subtags for languages with an obvious default script, when the language subtag was in common use before the RFC 4646 era.

Note that the record for 'tlh' is not new; only the secondary name is being changed (slightly).