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

["Addison Phillips" <addison.phillips at quest.com>]

I agree, Mark, that the full effect can be achieved with only one field and that your proposal is superior in a number of regards (fewer moving parts, ease of maintenance, ease of application).

I proposed two, though, for a reason. One of the objections was that we didn't document when a particular script really ought to be used (i.e. that you really should start to use zh-HanX-XX in preference to zh-XX). 

Notice where I put the stability guarantee: on the required scripts. Suppression of a script subtag is only stable as long as a language is only known to be written in one script (excepting oddities). Requirement of a script subtag however can be stable (no matter how many you add). Selection of a subtag, once selected, should be stable. The suppress field can't provide that.

The fact that you cannot turn the rules around using the required scripts (you still don't know when to omit a script subtag) lead me inexorably to two fields.

But I'd be just as happy, if not happier, with only one of these informative fields. The only option for that is the suppress field.

Addison

Addison P. Phillips
Globalization Architect, Quest Software
Chair, W3C Internationalization Core Working Group

Internationalization is not a feature.
It is an architecture. 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: ltru-bounces at lists.ietf.org [mailto:ltru-bounces at lists.ietf.org] On
> Behalf Of Mark Davis
> Sent: vendredi 15 avril 2005 22:26
> To: Peter Constable; ltru at ietf.org
> Subject: Re: [Ltru] Re: Proposed Text for Moving Forward
> 
> 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.
> 
> 
> 
> ‎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