Subject: Re: [Ietf-languages] bo: suppress script Tibt

From: "Doug Ewell" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 26 Mar 2018 11:09:13 -0700

Élie Roux wrote:

> The problem I'm trying to solve is to understand how to choose a tag
> and there was some hesitations between bo and bo-Tibt that a
> suppress-script would have prevented, but I don't know if it can be
> qualified as an actual problem.

Here are some guidelines:

1. As a tag producer, use "bo-Tibt" if you want to state explicitly that
the content is written in Tibetan script.

2. As a tag producer, use "bo" for written content if you do not feel it
is necessary to specify the script.

3. As a tag consumer, use "bo-Tibt" if you are specifically looking for
written content in Tibetan script.

4. As a tag consumer, use "bo" if you are searching for any
Tibetan-language content regardless of script, or if you feel Tibetan
script will be dominant to the point that it is not necessary to
specify.

5. Always use "bo" for all spoken or other non-written content.

Note that none of these actually requires the record for 'bo' in the
Registry to have Suppress-Script, or not to have it.

Suppress-Script, if present, would tell the tag producer that guidelines
1 and 3 should not be employed except in very unusual situations, such
as tagging or searching for 13th-century seals in Tibetan script that
would otherwise be expected to be in Phags-pa.

Without Suppress-Script, you are on your own to a greater degree, but
the normal rules about not including unnecessary subtags (as either
producer or consumer) still apply.

See RFC 5646, Section 4.1, item 2 for more information.
 
--
Doug Ewell | Thornton, CO, US | ewellic.org