Subject: [Ltru] Suppress-Script: fix registration description

From: Martin Duerst <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 01 Oct 2006 10:45:06 +0900

When preparing the proposal to add a Suppress-Script to Japanese,
I discovered the following contradiction in RFC 4646:

In 3.4., Stability of IANA Registry Entries:

   8.   The field 'Suppress-Script' MAY be added or removed via the
        registration process.

In 3.5., Registration Procedure for Subtags:

   Only subtags of type 'language' and 'variant' will be considered for
   independent registration of new subtags.  Handling of subtags needed
   for stability and subtags necessary to keep the registry synchronized
   with ISO 639, ISO 15924, ISO 3166, and UN M.49 within the limits
   defined by this document are described in Section 3.3.  Stability
   provisions are described in Section 3.4.

   This procedure MAY also be used to register or alter the information
   for the 'Description', 'Comments', 'Deprecated', or 'Prefix' fields
   in a subtag's record as described in Section 3.4.  Changes to all
   other fields in the IANA registry are NOT permitted.

This means that 3.4 says that Suppress-Script can be added or removed,
but 3.5 doesn't allow any changes to Suppress-Script.

My assumption as a technical contributor is that 3.4 is what we wanted,
and the fact that Suppress-Script is missing in 3.5 is an oversight.

As a co-chair, I think that we have to eliminate this contradiction,
both in RFC 4646bis, and preferably also via an erratum for RFC 4646.

Regards,     Martin.

#-#-#  Martin J. Du"rst, Assoc. Professor, Aoyama Gakuin University
#-#-#  http://www.sw.it.aoyama.ac.jp       mailto:[email-masked]     

_______________________________________________
Ltru mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ltru

---

From: Frank Ellermann <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 01 Oct 2006 12:59:18 +0200

Martin Duerst wrote:
 
> 3.4 is what we wanted, and the fact that Suppress-Script is
> missing in 3.5 is an oversight.
[...]
> I think that we have to eliminate this contradiction, both in
> RFC 4646bis, and preferably also via an erratum for RFC 4646.

Yes.  I really don't understand why some prefer a one-step or
two-step standards process.  Three-step is a sound minimum.

Frank

---

From: "Mark Davis" <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 1 Oct 2006 11:32:17 -0700

I agree about the contradiction, but disagree about the resolution. We need
to reserve the right to fix Suppress-Script when it is in error:
a) it is often very hard to find out reliable information about particular
languages.
b) such information can be wrong the first time, and may require fixing
c) languages change over time; we've seen within our lifetimes languages be
written entirely in a script, and change to allowing another script.

There is no need to lock this down for all time -- such a step should only
be taken when stability is an absolute requirement, and nobody has shown
compelling need for that.

Mark

---

From: Addison Phillips <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 02 Oct 2006 11:30:17 -0700

I have fixed the editor's copy of 4646bis (note that it is not posted 
online yet).

Addison

-- 
Addison Phillips
Globalization Architect -- Yahoo! Inc.

Internationalization is an architecture.
It is not a feature.