[Ltru] Supress & Require Script

["Randy Presuhn" <randy_presuhn at mindspring.com>]

Hi -

This discussion has cycled a few times, and I'd like to see whether
I understand where we are.  I'm not proclaiming consensus yet,
but just testing the waters, hoping that someone will post a chunk
of text (like the helpful proposals in the "Proposed Text for Moving
Forward" thread) that we can agree to.

1) a general consensus has emerged that the "supress_script"
concept is helpful, though it might be good to find a better name
it.  "implicit_script" has been suggested and found some support.

"default script" is strongly opposed, and seems to trigger ratholes.
We might even belabor the point with something like
"do_not_tag_script". :-) * 0.5

2) there seems to be general support for wording the guidelines
on the use of script subtags fairly strongly, using "MUST ... except"
rather than "SHOULD" and giving clear rationale for why they'd
work the way that is proposed.  An important part of this rationale
is coping with material that has already been tagged, and another
important part of this rationale is the desire to work with existing
matching algorithms.

3) it's less clear to me whether we're getting a consensus on
"require_script".  There were clear cases where a "supress_script"
was needed to prevent implementors from doing the "obvious" (but
undesirable) thing with languages like Yiddish and Gothic.  For
"require_script", it seems that the zh-Hant / zh-Hans cases appear
to be the favored examples.  (Presumably because the non-specialist
wouldn't know that the distinction needs to be made.  However, this
leads to the question of whether the non-specialist who is tagging
material would be able to tell the difference.  Do we care?)

Have I missed something major?

Randy




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