Subject: [Ltru] Re: Moving Forward

From: "Doug Ewell" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 14 Apr 2005 08:38:17 -0700

Peter Constable <petercon at microsoft dot com> wrote:

>> I do think that anyone proposing that the initial registry contain
>> default-script information for all 479 ISO 639-1 and -2 languages
>
> That is not what Frank or I have suggested. A default-script field
> only needs values for languages like English for which we don't want
> people to use script subtags in general.

I thought somebody, possibly Frank, possibly Ira, had suggested that all
languages that are commonly written in a single script should have that
script indicated with this new tag.  Many, perhaps the majority, of the
existing ISO 639-1 and -2 languages are single-script (not to claim that
the additional languages in ISO 639-3 are).

We can count on two hands the examples of two-or-more-script languages
that have been used on this list recently: Chinese, Azerbaijani,
Serbian, Mongolian, Tajik -- did I miss any?  Probably a great many
Indian languages fall into this category too.  But there are a lot of
single-script languages too, and I noticed a shift from "don't indicate
the script" to "do indicate the script so applications know what is
being omitted."  That second approach requires quite a bit more
research.

How do "languages like English" differ from other single-script
languages in this regard?

-Doug Ewell
 Fullerton, California
 http://users.adelphia.net/~dewell/

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

---

From: "Doug Ewell" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 14 Apr 2005 08:40:54 -0700

Peter Constable <petercon at microsoft dot com> wrote:

>> Would you prefer...
>
>> If you had other provisos besides these two, please send them to the
>> list...
>
> Randy has already indicated that issue 882 has been closed as
> rejected. Please don't invite further discussion of this issue.

Sorry.  It had been claimed that my objection was based on "confusion"
and failure to consider the points on their individual merits, and I was
just responding to that.

-Doug Ewell
 Fullerton, California

---

From: "Randy Presuhn" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 14 Apr 2005 10:12:08 -0700

Hi -

> From: "Doug Ewell" <[email-masked]>
> To: "LTRU Working Group" <[email-masked]>
> Sent: Thursday, April 14, 2005 8:40 AM
> Subject: [Ltru] Re: [psg.com #882] registry should copy non-English fieldsfrom ISO documents
>

>  http://users.adelphia.net/~dewell/

The follow-up clarifications by you and especially Lee's post on the
language neutrality of reference names should have enlightened
anyone who missed those points when they were previously made
in this thread.  Although issue 882 has been rejected and we should
now move on, I'm glad the followup took place.

Randy