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

["JFC (Jefsey) Morfin" <jefsey at jefsey.com>]

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.
jfc



At 07:25 16/04/2005, Mark Davis wrote:understand
> I'm sorry, I really misworded what I wanted to say, so it must have been
> very confusing.. In the opening, I meant to say that I don't see the reason
> for the *Require_Script*.
> If you look below, you see that what I propose is:
>
> ...this could be simplified down to one
> field, Suppress_Script, and two rules.
>
> 1. Script subtags listed in the 'Suppress_Script' field SHOULD NOT be used
> to form language tags unless they add specific information to the language
> tag required by an application.
>
> 2. Script subtags not listed in the 'Suppress_Script' field SHOULD always be
> used to form language tags when the script used by the content being
> identified matches the script unless there is a specific reason to omit the
> script subtag in the application.
>
>
> So
> A. If the Suppress_Script is Latn, then en-Latn becomes en, while en-Cyrl
> stays as is
> B. If there is no Suppress_Script (say for zh), then zh-Hant, zh-Hans,
> zh-Cyrl, (and everything else) stay as is.
>
>
>
> â??Mark
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Peter Constable" <petercon at microsoft.com>
> To: <ltru at ietf.org>
> Sent: Friday, April 15, 2005 19:03
> Subject: RE: [Ltru] Re: Proposed Text for Moving Forward
>
>
> > From: ltru-bounces at lists.ietf.org [mailto:ltru-bounces at lists.ietf.org]
> On
> > Behalf Of Mark Davis
>
>
> > This is a real improvement. But in terms of results, it appears that
> there
> > is no real difference in guidance in having the Suppress_Script field,
> and
> > having nothing. So it is unclear why the 'Suppress_Script' is needed.
>
> This is the most useful field: it is the one that addresses the concern
> voiced by Ira and others: that we don't get users or application
> developers going off and thinking that now they should use (say)
> en-Latn-GB or that the inclusion of Latn in this case has no particular
> concerns associated with it.
>
>
>
> Peter Constable
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Ltru mailing list
> Ltru at lists.ietf.org
> https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ltru
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Ltru mailing list
> Ltru at lists.ietf.org
> https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ltru


_______________________________________________
Ltru mailing list
Ltru at lists.ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ltru