dewell at adelphia.net
Sun Feb 26 05:20:55 CET 2006
John Cowan <cowan at ccil dot org> wrote:
> Is it a pity, in hindsignt, that we registered a bunch of tags for
> sign languages based on a collective 639-2 tag and a country? Yes.
> Are we stuck with it now? Yes. Can we easily change them to tags
> like ase or sgn-ase instead of sgn-US? No, not easily.
I don't propose doing away with "sgn-US" and its brethren; indeed we
can't. I do propose using "sgn-csr" in the 3066ter era for Costa Rican
Sign Language instead of "sgn-CR". I also propose introducing "sgn-ase"
as a non-preferred synonym for "sgn-US" for consistency, but that is
What I do NOT propose doing is saying, well, we've opened the barn door
by encoding "sgn-US" and brethren, so now we have to use that model
everywhere it is syntactically possible, and use "sgn-FK" for Falkland
Islands Sign Language instead of an ISO 639-3-based code.
> With sign languages, we weren't so lucky. We have to live with that.
> Now we can either treat sgn-US and the 20 other registered tags as sui
> generis, or we can extend the pattern to the other national-scope sign
> languages, and treat the "minority" sign languages differently, either
> as sgn-xxx or as just xxx. I proposed the former.
I thought you had proposed the latter. I'm glad I misunderstood.
Fullerton, California, USA
More information about the Ietf-languages