Mark Davis scripsit: > A. We know the language is customarily used with more than one script > B. We know the language is customarily used with one script > C. The information for A or B is not available in the registry: either just > not entered yet, or hard to find out. You omit: D. The language is not customarily used with any script. (Any language may be transcribed in writing, as any language may be spoken over the radio; but just the same, Chinese is written and Burushaski is not, as Navajo is regularly broadcast and Akkadian is not.) This does not apply to current 639-2 languages but will apply to 639-3 languages. > As I said before, I have not yet seen an implementation scenario where we > need the infomation in B, and both the strategies that use it require > entering in much more data than the ZZ scenario. So I'd like to see a > scenario that drives B clearly stated. >From what I can understand, which is by no means sure, the advocates for B information want it so that they can vet tags like en-Latn(-GB) and warn against or reject them. Without B information we cannot distinguish between en-Brai (anomalous, so correct) and en-Latn (undesirable). > 2. As Peter says, we mustn't say MUST NOT, however: there are scenarios in > which it may be appropriate to use en-Latn or ko-Latn. I believe the desire of this part of the WG is to reject en-Latn absolutely (because it is the default) while still retaining the possibility of ko-Latn. -- All Gaul is divided into three parts: the part John Cowan that cooks with lard and goose fat, the part www.ccil.org/~cowan that cooks with olive oil, and the part that www.reutershealth.com cooks with butter. -- David Chessler jcowan at reutershealth.com _______________________________________________ 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.