Subject: [Ltru] Re: [psg.com #1033] Written Spoken Signed

From: "Doug Ewell" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 13 Jun 2005 23:20:19 -0700

Peter Constable <petercon at microsoft dot com> wrote:

>> In fact, I think this should be one of the first variant subtags
>> requested.  It opens the door for sensible tagging of the 16 signed
>> spoken languages listed on Michael Everson's page, and possibly
>> others.
>
> What page? (I can't find anything on signed languages at
> evertype.com.)

http://www.evertype.com/standards/iso639/sgn.html

Note that none of the three-part tags in Tables A and B, nor any in
Table C, would be valid in RFC 3066bis.  The ones in Table A are already
grandfathered.

>> It's not like script subtags are ever required.
>
> No, they're not; but if someone wanted a way to explicitly indicate
> that some content was (say) verbal -- unwritten -- English, they could
> use "en-Zxxx" in contrast to "en". Just like someone *could* use
> "en-Latn" to explicitly distinguish English in Latin orthography from
> something else. I don't think there'd be any great need for it, but
> someone could do it if it met a need.

OK; the way the discussion was headed, it sounded like this would be a
common occurrence.

--
Doug Ewell
Fullerton, California
http://users.adelphia.net/~dewell/

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

---

From: "Peter Constable" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 14 Jun 2005 07:16:35 -0700

> From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]]
On
> Behalf Of Doug Ewell

> Table C, would be valid in RFC 3066bis.  The ones in Table A are
already

I would discourage people from using any of these, but especially the
three-part monstrosities. (I can just imagine us having tried to fit
these into our scheme: "If the first subtag is "sgn" and the second
subtag is from ISO 3166-1, a third subtag of the form 2alpha or 2num
...)

Peter Constable

---

From: "Peter Constable" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 14 Jun 2005 07:19:56 -0700

> From: John.Cowan [mailto:[email-masked]]

evertype.com.)
> 
> http://evertype.com/standards/iso639/sgn.html , near the bottom.

I didn't think to what Doug was referring to under the heading "ISO
TC46/SC4 and ISO TC37/SC2 Language codes" since I know full well there's
nothing like that in ISO 639.

So, sure, a subtag "signed" could be registered to deal with "signed
Afrikaans" etc. And when we get to 3066ter, I'll be inclined to
deprecate all those "sgn-" registrations in favour of ISO 639-3 alpha3
IDs (or perhaps tags like "sgn-ase" if people insist on a way to reflect
the modality) -- too bad we can't do that before we have to grandfather
them.

Peter Constable