Subject: RE: [Ltru] Re: Moving Forward

From: "Peter Constable" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 13 Apr 2005 08:22:51 -0700

> From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]]
On
> Behalf Of John Cowan

> Note that the purpose of Associated_Script is
> not to tell an implementer the usual script used with a language, but
> simply to serve notice which script *subtags*, if any, should normally
> be used with this language subtag.  This difference is fundamental.

We could make it more obvious, though. What about changing the label for
the field to Expected_Script_Subtags? (I.e. 'it is expected that one of
the following script subtags will also be used'.)

> The specific answer is that for centuries Gothic has been written
solely
> in the Latin script.  (This may start to change with the presence of
> Gothic in Unicode and the ready availability of Gothic fonts, or it
> may not.)  Therefore, no Associated_Script header should be present,
> and the tag got-Latn should be avoided (though got-Goth would be in
> order as an unusual script).

The one concern for our plan would be what to do if some apparently
stable mono-script situation suddenly changes. If we tag "got" today,
with Latin script assumed, and "got-Goth" for the unusual scenario, and
then next year a reform gets underway with the result that in five years
the situation has reversed, then what do we do? 

Of course, I'm describing another scenario like Turkish, and those
aren't all that likely. But a scenario such as going from only Cyrillic
today to Cyrillic and Latin next year might not be so far fetched.

Peter Constable

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

---

From: Frank Ellermann <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 14 Apr 2005 00:47:13 +0200

Peter Constable wrote:

> a scenario such as going from only Cyrillic today to Cyrillic
> and Latin next year might not be so far fetched.

Okay, I've made up my mind, a "default_script" is absolutely
necessary for the lang-script-region-variant scheme.

It's less important for Bruce's draft or Ira's order of tags,
but for Addison's order it's necessary.

Your objection "what if the world changes, as always" is valid
for all proposals (default_script, associated_scripts), and the
solution is obvious:  If the world changes the registry has to
changed.

With a default_script for some languages the _absence_  of this
info means "you SHOULD specify the script if you're not
prepared to get content in any script".

The _presence_ of a default_script means "you SHOULD NOT use
the default script in tags."

Changing this info later in the registry (your TR scenario, or
the got-Latn => got-Goth scenario) will be a *major* headache.

It's the price that has to be paid for the lang-script-region
scheme, if we don't like it we can use Bruce's or Ira's ideas.

Maybe Bruce's idea will win over the lang-sript-region scheme
where it can win (mail, news, http, html, xhtml), but we have
seen that no proposal works everywhere without some problems.

                      Bye, Frank