[Ltru] Re: Great Script Debate "the Next Generation"... (long)

["Doug Ewell" <dewell at adelphia.net>]

I don't plan to keep fighting this battle over Suppress-Script.  My 
views on that are well known -- I don't like the S-S mechanism, don't 
feel we needed to solve the problem it solves and don't feel this was 
the best way to solve it -- but we have it now, and we have gone the 
route of "invent something, then deprecate it" too many times already.

Just a couple of comments:

> 1. zero or one script subtag have the same behavior. Acquiring a 
> second script, however, requires extra scrutiny by ietf-languages 
> because it changes the potential default behavior for tag formation 
> for that language.

First, if "zero" and "one" mean the same thing, there is a fundamental 
flaw in the scheme.  The "one" case is what we have now with 
Suppress-Script, but it would be purely informative, to the point of 
superficiality.  It would have no impact on tagging -- exactly what Mark 
said he didn't want in the Registry.  Best to disallow this and have 
either no values, or else two or more.

Second, the whole purpose of this proposed new mechanism is to indicate 
the two-or-more situation.  If meaningless transitions between "zero" 
and "one" are easily handled, but adding a second script is a difficult 
or contentious process for ietf-languages, the mechanism has failed.

--
Doug Ewell  *  Fullerton, California, USA  *  RFC 4645  *  UTN #14
http://users.adelphia.net/~dewell/
http://www1.ietf.org/html.charters/ltru-charter.html
http://www.alvestrand.no/mailman/listinfo/ietf-languages


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