Leif Halvard Silli <lhs at malform dot no> wrote: > With a clear name, one field can be better than two. Noted. > As for the name, "which/what scope" is not the first question I would > ask first in order to learn which of those values that fits. > > Whereas "what kind (of language)" seems natural. Hence Kent's mention > of "kind" has my support. I worry about non-native English speakers, or even native English speakers, drawing a clear distinction between the words "type" and "kind." To me they are perhaps too similar. > Another, clear name is "Kind-of-language", unless a 3-word-name is out > of scope. Since we already have "Preferred-Value" and "Suppress-Script," this would not be a limitation. -- Doug Ewell * Arvada, Colorado, USA * RFC 4645 * UTN #14 http://www.ewellic.org http://www1.ietf.org/html.charters/ltru-charter.html http://www.alvestrand.no/mailman/listinfo/ietf-languages ˆ _______________________________________________ Ltru mailing list Ltru at ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ltru
Note Well: Messages sent to this mailing list are the opinions of the senders and do not imply endorsement by the IETF.