Language Subtag Registration Form: variant "signed"
petercon at microsoft.com
Tue Feb 28 23:16:30 CET 2006
> From: ietf-languages-bounces at alvestrand.no [mailto:ietf-languages-
> bounces at alvestrand.no] On Behalf Of Addison Phillips
> I think it might be a good thing if the ISO 639-3 codes proposed for
> languages were registered by ISO 639-2. Then NO internet-drafts would
> necessary. None of this has any bearing on RFC 3066bis, which is
> fine for identifying languages regardless of how they are
> signaled---provided appropriate subtags are available and, as John
> out, both existing registrations and the overall process allows for
> be available.
I think we already agree that we're going to want a new RFC eventually
to incorporate 639-3. Adding IDs for signed languages to 639-2, for our
purposes, is an issue only in providing tags now for greater number of
languages. In that regard, the signed-language IDs in 639-3 are no
different from every other entry in 639-3 that's not currently in 639-2.
The ISO 639 JAC has criteria for inclusion in 639-2, and we are planning
to make that more restrictive in the future given that 639-3 will
provide for general needs. Thus, I do not see the JAC accepting all of
the signed-language IDs in 639-3 into 639-2, nor do I see a good
justification for it wrt our needs here.
More information about the Ietf-languages