Subject: [Ltru] Re: Suppress-Script

From: "Doug Ewell" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 26 Mar 2007 07:32:35 -0700

Frank Ellermann <nobody at xyzzy dot claranet dot de> wrote:

>> I think differentiating between "no Suppress-Script field" and "a 
>> Suppress-Script field with an empty value" would be very tricky 
>> business, and I would not support it.
>
> As far as I'm concerned an informal file stating which languages have 
> intentionally no Suppress-Script would also do.  It should be better 
> than only adding "n/a" manually to quick & dirty overviews like 
> <http://purl.net/xyzzy/home/ltru/scripts703>, though.

Even if it were possible to distinguish these two cases ("two or more 
scripts in use" versus "script information unknown"), I don't think such 
a file could remain informal for long; those who wish to ascribe an 
interpretation to the absence of a Suppress-Script would soon treat it 
as authoritative.

Maybe what we need to do is add wording to 4646bis to clarify the 
intended meaning of "no Suppress-Script."

--
Doug Ewell  *  Fullerton, California, USA  *  RFC 4645  *  UTN #14
http://users.adelphia.net/~dewell/
http://www1.ietf.org/html.charters/ltru-charter.html
http://www.alvestrand.no/mailman/listinfo/ietf-languages

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

---

From: Frank Ellermann <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 27 Mar 2007 17:01:04 +0200

> interpretation to the absence of a Suppress-Script would soon treat it

If folks "abuse" info it's their problem.  We've seen the consequences
of assuming that country codes are not recycled (just an example).  An
informal list of "intentionally no Suppress-Script" languages would be
a "work in progress" memo of / for the review list, not "authoritative".

> intended meaning of "no Suppress-Script."

+1

Frank

---

From: Addison Phillips <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 27 Mar 2007 08:25:51 -0700

>> intended meaning of "no Suppress-Script."

Then I propose we add this paragraph to section 3.1.9:

--
Many language subtag records do not have a Suppress-Script field. The 
lack of a Suppress-Script might indicate that the language is 
customarily written in more than one script (or that the language is not 
customarily written at all). It might also mean that authoritative 
information was not available with the record was created and has not be 
registered yet.
--

Addison

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

Internationalization is an architecture.
It is not a feature.

---

From: "Mark Davis" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 27 Mar 2007 09:02:13 -0700

+1

-- 
Mark

---

From: Frank Ellermann <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 27 Mar 2007 18:20:37 +0200

s/1/2/

---

From: Martin Duerst <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 28 Mar 2007 12:06:20 +0900

>Then I propose we add this paragraph to section 3.1.9:

+1, with a few tweaks.

>--
>Many language subtag records do not have a Suppress-Script field. The lack of a Suppress-Script might indicate that the language is customarily written in more than one script (or that the language is not customarily written at all).

Please remove the parentheses, using a comma instead.

>It might also mean that authoritative information was not available with the record was created and has not be registered yet.

with -> when; also, change 'authoritative' to something else unless
that's the terminology we use for other registry-related stuff.
(to me, it suggests something more official than what's usually
required).

Regards,    Martin.

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

---

From: Addison Phillips <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 28 Mar 2007 08:27:16 -0700

> Please remove the parentheses, using a comma instead.

Okay.

> with -> when; 

Yes, thanks to both Martins.

> also, change 'authoritative' to something else unless

How about "sufficient" or "verifiable"? Although "authoritative" is what 
we mean.

Addison

---

From: Frank Ellermann <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 28 Mar 2007 18:35:09 +0200

> How about "sufficient" or "verifiable"? Although "authoritative"
> is what we mean.

Better "sufficient", IIRC we didn't really verify the CLDR source
for what's now in the registry.  A later version was found to be
not directly usable for a bulk registry update on the review list.

Frank