Subject: RE: [Ltru] Supress & Require Script

From: "Peter Constable" <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 17 Apr 2005 21:03:25 -0700

> From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]]
On
> Behalf Of Randy Presuhn

> I'm ... just testing the waters...

> 1) a general consensus has emerged that the "supress_script"
> concept is helpful...

I agree, whatever the name (IMO, "suppress_script" or "implicit_script"
are better than "default_script").

> 2) there seems to be general support for wording the guidelines
> on the use of script subtags fairly strongly, using "MUST ... except"
> rather than "SHOULD" and giving clear rationale for why they'd
> work the way that is proposed...

I've no strong preference between "MUST... except" or a strong "SHOULD";
I agree on inclusion of rational.

> 3) it's less clear to me whether we're getting a consensus on
> "require_script"...

I'm not convinced of the need, and lean toward excluding this, but am
not strongly opposed.

One thought about a possible option moving forward: the reason for
identifying suppress_script cases is to ensure desired functionality
with existing implementations and usage of tags such as en-GB, de-DE,
ar-SA, etc. A couple of secondary concerns have been pointed out,
though:

- If a language is written today 99.9% with one particular script, but
that changes in the future, then all of the legacy usage without any
script subtag will become problematic.

- It won't be the easiest task to determine for less-well-known
languages when it's appropriate to add a suppress_script value.

Thinking down the road to when we include ISO 639-3, one thing would
could perhaps do to limit these problems would be to determine that we
will only specify suppress_script values for languages that are included
in ISO 639-2; indeed, perhaps we get them set in the initial registry,
and no other suppress_script fields are ever added in the future
(barring some case getting overlooked in preparing the initial
registry). The idea would be that when people start tagging using IDs
currently only ISO 639-3, they would be encouraged to include script
subtags even if they appear to be redundant at present. This would be
following Debbie Garside's suggestion from a while back: include all
relevant details since you never know when they might be needed.

Just a thought...

Peter Constable

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

---

From: Frank Ellermann <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 18 Apr 2005 06:55:50 +0200

Peter Constable wrote:

> If a language is written today 99.9% with one particular
> script, but that changes in the future, then all of the
> legacy usage without any script subtag will become
> problematic.

As long as the registry sticks to its legacy suppress_script
there should be no problem.  If yi somehow drifts to Latn, or
if got drifts to Goth, then new content can simply say so, as
it can "today" (one day after the final date-B).

> It won't be the easiest task to determine for less-well-known

If we go for this idea:  Doug could add "Suppress_script: TBD"
everywhere, and we have to clean this mess before the final
date-B.  Maybe the languages list can help out with this task.

For scripts where it's so obscure that nobody knows how to
determine a suppress_script the TBD can be silently removed -
it's probably no case breaking LDAP, browsers, or Web servers
worldwide.

> determine that we will only specify suppress_script values
> for languages that are included in ISO 639-2

Because otherwise there can't be any problem with old content
etc., yes, that's a good idea.

> no other suppress_script fields are ever added in the future

Better, no complex rules for the poor language tag reviewer.

> This would be following Debbie Garside's suggestion

Yes.  The "suppress_script" is a compatibility kludge, and not
a wonderful way to save five bytes where possible.  Bye, Frank

---

From: "JFC (Jefsey) Morfin" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 18 Apr 2005 15:21:35 +0200

>relevant details since you never know when they might be needed.

This seems to be a MUST. As well as for the IANA registrations.
All this is to patch legacy problems, let them not continue.
jfc

---

From: "Debbie Garside" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 18 Apr 2005 18:55:26 +0100

> relevant details since you never know when they might be needed.

And... a VERY good thought, at that... ;-)

As for populating the registry... as Lee would say... "the devil is in the
detail"... 

Debbie Garside

www.linguasphere.com

> -----Original Message-----
> From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]] On
> Behalf Of Peter Constable
> Sent: 18 April 2005 05:03
> To: [email-masked]
> Subject: RE: [Ltru] Supress & Require Script
>