sgn-MT [et al.]: new RFC 3066 tag[s]

[John Cowan]

Michael Everson scripsit:

> I think the problem is that "sgn" does not refer to a language AT 
> ALL, and (as I suggested once a long time a go) I think the RFC 
> should define as SPECIAL syntax for what happens wit the prefix "sgn".

I tend to agree with this, for two reasons: because sign languages are
a special case, and because I don't want to upset the existing agreement.

> Then you would want to deprecate "sgn-IE" in favour of "sgn-isg", and 
> I guess you will later want to deprecate that in favour of "isg"?

This is the sticky wicket for 639-3, and unless we solve it, we shall
get no forwarder.

> And what about Signed Spoken Languages? Those also MUST have country 
> codes. "sgn-eng-IE" is different from "sgn-eng-US" and *very* 
> different from "sgn-eng-GB". All of those are representations of 
> spoken English.

Indeed.

> I do not relish explaining the proposed changes to the user 
> community, which helped develop this scheme. I would very much like 
> the scheme there to be adopted as a special case for "sgn" in RFC 
> 3066bis.

The cost of doing so is relatively low, and I agree that we should.

-- 
[W]hen I wrote it I was more than a little              John Cowan
febrile with foodpoisoning from an antique carrot       cowan at ccil.org
that I foolishly ate out of an illjudged faith          www.ccil.org/~cowan
in the benignancy of vegetables.  --And Rosta           www.reutershealth.com