Mark Davis wrote:
(editor hat OFF) Wouldn't we just include the S-S field in the records of type extlang?Because they there is always the chance that we screw up the synchronization. If we include the S-S by reference that can't happen. If we include the SS field in extlang fields, then we also have to add the rule for the Language Reviewer that anything that every extlang MUST have an SS if and only if the corresponding primary language subtag does.
A primary-extlang combination should take its Suppress-Script, if any, from the primary language subtag.
Problem: If you have some flavor of Arabic, denoted by an extlang, that isn't written overwhelmingly in the Arabic script, how do you interpret the absence of a script subtag? (I personally don't think this is a huge real-world problem, but it's the sort of thing we in LTRU love to dwell on.)
-- Doug Ewell * Thornton, 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.