Subject: [Ltru] Re: Moving Forward

From: "Doug Ewell" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 13 Apr 2005 22:31:09 -0700

Addison Phillips <addison dot phillips at quest dot com>

> How about:
>
> Subtags which are not important for distinguishing content in an
> application SHOULD NOT be used to form language tags. In particular,
> you MUST NOT use the script subtag unless (a) the language subtag has
> an Expected_Script field or (b) the specific script distinction is
> important to the application. For example, the tag "en-Latn-US" should
> be used exceedingly rarely since nearly all English texts are written
> in the Latin script and it is generally not important to filter out
> those few that are not, while documents that use the primary language
> subtag 'sr' (Serbian) must be distinguished by the choice of Latin or
> Cyrillic script.

I can see I'm not going to win this "default script" argument, so I'm
just going to back off and wait for the next draft that contains
whatever solution the group agrees on.

I do think that anyone proposing that the initial registry contain
default-script information for all 479 ISO 639-1 and -2 languages (not
just a few obvious multi-script cases that Addison and Mark had
suggested) be prepared to recommend a reliable source for this
information.

Also, I still believe in the language-script-region order and strongly
support it.  IMHO the proponents of LRS order are relying solely on the
argument that LSR doesn't work with certain scenarios of left-prefix
matching where LRS does, ignoring the fact that for other, equally
plausible scenarios, LRS doesn't work and LSR does.

-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: Wed, 13 Apr 2005 22:36:38 -0700

Peter Constable <petercon at microsoft dot com> wrote:

> I suggest that the label for this field be "Expected_Script_Subtags".
> The original suggestion, "Associated_Script", had the weakness that it
> didn't really communicate that for typical usage scenarios it's
> expected that one of the enumerated script subtags will be used. It
> just seems to be informing you that some script(s) are associated with
> the given language. The alternative "Expected_Script" (different from
> the change I had suggested) has the same weakness.

The exact wording that is chosen for the draft will probably have much
more to do with the strength or weakness of the "recommendation" than
the name of the field itself.  And it seems oddly redundant to me to use
the word "Subtags" in the name of a field that contains subtags.

-Doug Ewell
 Fullerton, California