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

["Mark Davis" <mark.davis at jtcsv.com>]

I'm ok with MUST NOT, if the exception is clearly stated (and it is not just
legacy that is at issue). For parallelism with #2, they could be:

1. Script subtags listed in the 'Suppress_Script' field MUST NOT be used
to form language tags unless there is a specific reason to include
the script subtag in the application.

2. Script subtags not listed in the 'Suppress_Script' field SHOULD always
be used to form language tags when they match the script used by the content
unless there is a specific reason to omit the script subtag in the
application.

‎Mark

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "McDonald, Ira" <imcdonald at sharplabs.com>
To: "'Addison Phillips'" <addison.phillips at quest.com>; "Peter Constable"
<petercon at microsoft.com>; <ltru at ietf.org>
Sent: Saturday, April 16, 2005 14:08
Subject: RE: [Ltru] Re: Proposed Text for Moving Forward


> 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
>
>



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