Registered sgn-* tags
everson at evertype.com
Mon Jul 12 19:43:41 CEST 2004
At 10:15 -0700 2004-07-12, Doug Ewell wrote:
>Would these not have been valid under the generative grammar of RFC
>3066? We have sgn-BR for Brazilian Sign Language, sgn-CO for Colombian
>Sign Language, and so forth.
They might well have been.
>How does this differ from "Sign Languages as used in Brazil," "Sign
>Languages as used in Colombia," etc. which would be the
>interpretation according to the generative grammar?
Don't ask me.
>I wasn't on this list when they were registered, so I missed the
>discussion. Can someone summarize it for me? I'm just trying to
>understand why it was felt necessary to register them instead of
>letting them be generated.
Because the user community wanted to be able to reference properly
registered entities, which I consider to be a useful thing,
regardless of how clever 3066bis is.
>Of course, the "extended" language tags sgn-BE-fr, sgn-BE-nl, and
>sgn-CH-de are a different matter. They don't follow the grammar of
>either RFC 3066 or draft-04, so there was no choice; they had to be
>registered under the former and grandfathered into the latter.
There is a requirement to be able to generate more of this kind of
tag, for signed speech. I hope that "grandfathered" doesn't mean that
such will be forbidden in future, because that will not do.
Michael Everson * * Everson Typography * * http://www.evertype.com
More information about the Ietf-languages