Sign languages (was: Re: additions to ISO 639 and the IANA
language subtag registry)
cowan at ccil.org
Tue Feb 21 05:25:17 CET 2006
Doug Ewell scripsit:
> "sgn-CR" is perfectly 3066-valid for "sign languages as used in Costa
> Rica," but if anyone has used it to mean specifically "Costa Rican SL"
> on the basis of Michael's page, they have no assurance that it will be
> interpreted as such by 3066-conformant processors.
I think that's splitting hairs. sgn-US unquestionably means American
Sign Language, by RFC 3066 registration; it would be entirely proper
for people to use sgn-CR for Costa Rican SL.
> In cases like Algerian SL, American SL, and so forth, where the sgn +
> region syntax would be syntactically legal, why don't we add *both* to
> the registry and make one Preferred over the other?
Because multiple codes for the same thing is a big annoyance and impedes
matching. Essentially the same reason why we are going to use zh-yue
instead of just yue.
Where the wombat has walked, John Cowan <cowan at ccil.org>
it will inevitably walk again. http://www.ccil.org/~cowan
More information about the Ietf-languages