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

["Mark Davis" <mark.davis at icu-project.org>]

"Nope" is a bit too simple.

a) we don't say in the spec that the fields in a record must be considered to be unordered (unless I've missed something).

b) even if that were the case, we could have

   Script: Hans, Hant

===

Zero and One don't mean the same thing in the Script (S) proposal.

S:
Zero means: there isn't any information in the registry about the use of script.
One means: as far as we know, the language tag is only customarily used with this script.
>=2 means: as far as we know, the language tag is customarily used with all of these scripts, and no others.

So this provides more infomation that the structure with the SS, which has:

SS:
Zero means: either there isn't any information in the registry about the use of the script, or as far as we know, the language tag is customarily used with multiple scripts (but we're not going to tell you which ones).
One means: as far as we know, the language tag is only customarily used with this script.

In terms of usage, the recomendations would be:

SS:
Zero: we can't tell you much, but if you know that the script is only customarily used with a single script, do like the Zero case, and if you know it is customarily used with more scripts, do like the >=2 case.

One: unless you have a good reason, or your script actually differs from this one, don't use a script.

>=2: unless you have a good reason, don't use a script that isn't in this list. And don't use a script at all: 
a) in tagging content or in lookup unless it applies (eg written material only in that script), or 
b) in filtering, unless you want to restrict yourself to only one script.

===

Stability. Our guarantee is that the language tags themselves are stable, not the precise format of the registry. And by stable, that doesn't mean unchanging, either. We can add valid language tags, and we can broaden the semantics of existing language tags.

Mark

On 10/5/06, Doug Ewell <dewell at adelphia.net> wrote:

Mark Davis <mark dot davis at icu dash project dot org> wrote:

> I am in favor of this approach; it would be much more useful, and more
> maintainable. I would add that it would be useful information to say
> that the order of the scripts is a rough indication of the volume of
> text in the language in that script.

Nope.  Several people have already stated that order is not relevant in
the Registry or in record-jar generally.  I asked about this with regard
to the relative order of Description fields, and this was the answer I
got.

--
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

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