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

["McDonald, Ira" <imcdonald at sharplabs.com>]

Hi,

"Implicit" is not very clear - it's capable of being misread as
"Default" (meaningless) and is not a verb like "Suppress" - it sure 
doesn't indicate Suppress in plain English.

By the way, IETF standards do often use the construction MUST NOT 
followed by one or more exceptions.  So a stronger rewrite of the 
Mark's two rule set would be:

1. Script subtags listed in the 'Suppress_Script' field MUST NOT be used
to form language tags unless they add specific information to the language
tag required by an application, to improve language tag matching for legacy
content.
 
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.

Cheers,
- Ira

Ira McDonald (Musician / Software Architect)
Blue Roof Music / High North Inc
PO Box 221  Grand Marais, MI  49839
phone: +1-906-494-2434
email: imcdonald at sharplabs.com

> -----Original Message-----
> From: ltru-bounces at lists.ietf.org 
> [mailto:ltru-bounces at lists.ietf.org]On
> Behalf Of Addison Phillips
> Sent: Saturday, April 16, 2005 3:19 PM
> To: Peter Constable; ltru at ietf.org
> Subject: RE: [Ltru] Re: Proposed Text for Moving Forward
> 
> 
> I dislike "default" because it implies way too many things 
> that aren't really true about the field. "Implicit" isn't bad, though.
> 
> 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 Peter Constable
> > Sent: samedi 16 avril 2005 05:34
> > To: ltru at ietf.org
> > Subject: RE: [Ltru] Re: Proposed Text for Moving Forward
> > 
> > > From: JFC (Jefsey) Morfin [mailto: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.
> > 
> > Keep in mind, we do expect someone to have at least glanced 
> at the RFC.
> > But if "Suppress_Script" really doesn't communicate well 
> enough, then
> > what about "Implied_Script" or "Implicit_Script"?
> > 
> > 
> > A side note: In a paper I wrote three years ago, I had a section
> > entitled "Default values and implicit tagging", discussing 
> specifically
> > the issue of script subtags. I find it interesting that we 
> started with
> > a suggestion of a field called "Default_Script" and have 
> now come around
> > to a suggestion that it be called "Implicit_Script". FYI, here's an
> > excerpt from the end of that section of that paper:
> > 
> > <quote>
> > The choice of whether or not to adopt the use of implicit default
> > semantics amounts to a trade-off between simpler tags and 
> compatibility
> > with existing implementations on the one hand, and 
> identifiers with more
> > predictable forms, more predictable semantics, and 
> therefore no need to
> > maintain a database of implicit relationships on the other hand.
> > </quote>
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 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