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

From: "Peter Constable" <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 16 Apr 2005 05:34:12 -0700

> From: JFC (Jefsey) Morfin [mailto:[email-masked]]

> 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.

Keep in mind, we do expect someone to have at least glanced at the RFC.
But if "Suppress_Script" really doesn't communicate well enough, then
what about "Implied_Script" or "Implicit_Script"?

A side note: In a paper I wrote three years ago, I had a section
entitled "Default values and implicit tagging", discussing specifically
the issue of script subtags. I find it interesting that we started with
a suggestion of a field called "Default_Script" and have now come around
to a suggestion that it be called "Implicit_Script". FYI, here's an
excerpt from the end of that section of that paper:

<quote>
The choice of whether or not to adopt the use of implicit default
semantics amounts to a trade-off between simpler tags and compatibility
with existing implementations on the one hand, and identifiers with more
predictable forms, more predictable semantics, and therefore no need to
maintain a database of implicit relationships on the other hand.
</quote>

Peter Constable

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

---

From: "JFC (Jefsey) Morfin" <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 16 Apr 2005 23:53:27 +0200

I agree about the RFC. But there are 4000 of them a developer should know. 
Usually first implementations are discussed by people having read many of 
them and keeping sometimes confused memories. This explains most of the 
existing variations in codes.

So, I have nothing against nothing. But what is clear should preferable be 
clearly described to be clearly understood by the proper person. From what 
I gather, we agreed that "default" was not the proper idea, because if 
there was nothing, there was no script. Implicit convey the correct idea. 
However from what I also gather, we want to teach developers not to use the 
script in that case.

As a developer I understand "implicit" as something which is here if it is 
here, but there is no harm in adding anew (by security). I understand 
"redundant" as something which creates a waste of cpu resources, confusion 
or may be even, security leak. So I am more careful.

But I also understand that someone registering a tag may see it otherwise. 
"implicit" is then more neutral, working for both. It is also shorter.
jfc