Subject: RE: [Ltru] Re: Default script sine qua non

From: "Peter Constable" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 13 Apr 2005 18:07:21 -0700

> From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]]
On Behalf Of
> Frank Ellermann

> One thing we should explain in the registry draft is the Zyyy
> counter-kludge for the case "I really want _any_ script for a
> language with default_script".  In practice this is probably
> highly irrelevant, but curious minds want to know (otherwise
> they'd ask what this WG was smoking, and that would be worse).

Of course, the problem is someone wanting to request "I want only the
default script -- don't dare give me anything in Braille, some
transliteration or uncommon script, etc."

Peter Constable

_______________________________________________
Ltru mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ltru

---

From: "Mark Davis" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 13 Apr 2005 21:03:57 -0700

I don't quite understand the proposal. The scenario that people were talking
about was:

Q. What should I put in as my language in my browser, and what should a web
page provider use, en-US or en-<somescript>-US?

A. Look in the registry and see if there are more than two
Expected_Script_Subtags for en. If so, use one of the scripts there. If not,
don't.

If there is another concrete implementation scenario that requires the
script, where it is not easily obtainable outside of the registry, I'd like
to see that before we go any further. Otherwise, I see no reason to burden
the registry with the addition of a default script as well.

‎Mark

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Peter Constable" <[email-masked]>
To: <[email-masked]>
Sent: Wednesday, April 13, 2005 18:07
Subject: RE: [Ltru] Re: Default script sine qua non

On Behalf Of

Peter Constable