Dear Anderson, > -- > <section title="Canonicalization of Language Tags" anchor="canonical"> I would propose adding (to draft-15): 6. Redundant script tags which are the same as the suppressed script for a language are not present. In addition, I would like to ask about fonipa and fonupa. Currently in 4645 they have no prefix, which makes sense since they can be used with any language. But they can only be used with Latn script. In fact, they imply Latn script. So what should the canonical form of Eastern Bru in IPA be? bru-Latn-fonipa or can we in some way indicate the implication of Latn by fonipa and just use: bru-fonipa I would suggest that if we want to do this, then specifying a prefix in the record for fonipa, of Latn would be sufficient although we may want some wording somewhere along the lines of: Where the prefix tag for a variant consists of a script, that variant implies the presence of that prefix and the prefix is required not to exist in the canonical form of the tag. Yours, Martin Hosken _______________________________________________ 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.