Language subtag modification request: frr Suppres-Script Latn
everson at evertype.com
Thu Mar 9 21:44:27 CET 2006
At 08:13 -0800 2006-03-09, Addison Phillips wrote:
>Users are already cautioned not to use subtags that add no
>distinguishing value, as 'Latn' usually does not for 'frr'.
>Suppress-Script is an informative field that provides a stronger
>level of caution to registry users and should be reserved, in my
>opinion, for cases where confusion would otherwise result.
Then I should be well within my responsibilites to deny Frank's
request. In the first place, it was stated to be a "testdrive" and so
can be considered frivolous. In the second, no rationale was given
for why Northern Frisian should require such a specification. I doubt
anyone is confused about Northern Frisian.
>On the other hand, it is quite clear that the rules permit Frank to make the
>request and that Michael needs to respond with a decision within two weeks
>or issue an extension. I don't see any evidence that this request is wrong,
>so I reluctantly support its inclusion, but I would also suggest that we
>*not* go through the exercise of making all possible suppress-script fields.
I don't believe that the request responds to any user requirement,
and user requirement is one criterion (of many) that we have taken
into account in the past.
>If someone feels strongly enough to issue the occasional request, it should
>be, in my opinion, honored if it is reasonable and can be demonstrated to be
Not so in the case of Northern Frisian, I think.
>I'll note that for many languages it won't be possible for us to accurately
>gauge if a language subtag should get the extra level of warning about the
>use of the script subtag that Suppress-Script provides. I don't think we
>should get into the business of warning about the use of script subtags
>explicitly unless there is a real need (beyond the mere desire for the data
>set to be complete).
I can't think of any language that really needs this spelled out.
Of course, the ugliness that revolved around the revision of the RFC
is one of the reasons I (and probably some others) did not
participate in its revision, but now we can find its bugs and prepare
for the next revision. :-)
Michael Everson * http://www.evertype.com
More information about the Ietf-languages