Peter Constable <petercon at microsoft dot com> wrote: >> I do think that anyone proposing that the initial registry contain >> default-script information for all 479 ISO 639-1 and -2 languages > > That is not what Frank or I have suggested. A default-script field > only needs values for languages like English for which we don't want > people to use script subtags in general. I thought somebody, possibly Frank, possibly Ira, had suggested that all languages that are commonly written in a single script should have that script indicated with this new tag. Many, perhaps the majority, of the existing ISO 639-1 and -2 languages are single-script (not to claim that the additional languages in ISO 639-3 are). We can count on two hands the examples of two-or-more-script languages that have been used on this list recently: Chinese, Azerbaijani, Serbian, Mongolian, Tajik -- did I miss any? Probably a great many Indian languages fall into this category too. But there are a lot of single-script languages too, and I noticed a shift from "don't indicate the script" to "do indicate the script so applications know what is being omitted." That second approach requires quite a bit more research. How do "languages like English" differ from other single-script languages in this regard? -Doug Ewell Fullerton, California http://users.adelphia.net/~dewell/ _______________________________________________ Ltru mailing list Ltru at lists.ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ltru
Note Well: Messages sent to this mailing list are the opinions of the senders and do not imply endorsement by the IETF.