Subject: RE: [Ltru] Re: Proposed Text for Moving Forward

From: "Peter Constable" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 15 Apr 2005 19:03:01 -0700

> From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]]
On
> Behalf Of Mark Davis

> This is a real improvement. But in terms of results, it appears that
there
> is no real difference in guidance in having the Suppress_Script field,
and
> having nothing. So it is unclear why the 'Suppress_Script' is needed.

This is the most useful field: it is the one that addresses the concern
voiced by Ira and others: that we don't get users or application
developers going off and thinking that now they should use (say)
en-Latn-GB or that the inclusion of Latn in this case has no particular
concerns associated with it.

Peter Constable

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

---

From: "Mark Davis" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 15 Apr 2005 22:25:59 -0700

I'm sorry, I really misworded what I wanted to say, so it must have been
very confusing.. In the opening, I meant to say that I don't see the reason
for the *Require_Script*.
If you look below, you see that what I propose is:

...this could be simplified down to one
field, Suppress_Script, and two rules.

1. Script subtags listed in the 'Suppress_Script' field SHOULD NOT be used
to form language tags unless they add specific information to the language
tag required by an application.

2. Script subtags not listed in the 'Suppress_Script' field SHOULD always be
used to form language tags when the script used by the content being
identified matches the script unless there is a specific reason to omit the
script subtag in the application.

So
A. If the Suppress_Script is Latn, then en-Latn becomes en, while en-Cyrl
stays as is
B. If there is no Suppress_Script (say for zh), then zh-Hant, zh-Hans,
zh-Cyrl, (and everything else) stay as is.

‎Mark

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Peter Constable" <[email-masked]>
To: <[email-masked]>
Sent: Friday, April 15, 2005 19:03
Subject: RE: [Ltru] Re: Proposed Text for Moving Forward

On

there
and

Peter Constable

---

From: "JFC (Jefsey) Morfin" <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 16 Apr 2005 11:31:29 +0200

As a non English speaker I more or less understand the English of 
"Suppress_Script" because I know its history. I am not sure an occasional 
developper will understand/remember the meaning of it. Unneeded, needless, 
redundant_script would be clearer to me.
jfc

At 07:25 16/04/2005, Mark Davis wrote:understand
>â€ŽMark