Language Subtag Registration Form: variant "signed"
nobody at xyzzy.claranet.de
Sun Feb 26 02:44:50 CET 2006
John Cowan wrote:
> in the first case the lexical source for the signs is British
> SL, whereas in the second case it's Irish SL.
Yes, so far it's clear, and what practical relevance does that
have wrt tagged content ? Is en-IE-signed "undecodable" for a
signer of en-GB-signed ?
In other words, would we today simply register -1901 and -1996
with a simple prefix de- and be done with it, or create a list
de, de-AT, de-CH, de-DE with apologies to BE, DK, IT, etc. ?
> I continue to believe that signed spoken languages should be
> handled with an extension so that both the lexical source
> (a SL) and the grammatical source (a spoken language) can be
> fully specified.
As long as that extension registry doesn't exist it's no reason
to reject the request. But something is very odd with it, is
"signed" actually a kind of script, only signed, not written ?
Maybe a hypothetical "Lats" is better than "signed". Assuming
that the used signs are somehow derived from "Latn". It's
probably bogus to tag en-Brai-signed or similar. Of course
Doug's request doesn't list prefix en, let alone en-Brai. Bye
More information about the Ietf-languages