Language Subtag Registration Form: variant "signed"
nobody at xyzzy.claranet.de
Sun Feb 26 05:06:31 CET 2006
Doug Ewell wrote:
> I don't believe this to be true for the Rechtschreibung.
Yes, it's supposed to be identical. Only the sets of used
words are minimally different, sometimes also the meaning,
and CH has no ß We could omit the regions if we'd
register it today with prefix de.
> That is the premise with regard to signed spoken languages
> that Signed American English is fundamentally different from
> Signed British English, because of reliance on ASL vs. BSL
> respectively, or for other reasons.
I didn't know that, thanks for info. Why do you say that they
are "variants" of en-US or en-GB ? Could somebody invent a
new signed language for en, used in Liverpool and New York, so
that you don't get away with the clumsy region codes ?
In other words, if you are very sure that they are no special
kind of scripts, maybe they are actually languages.
Or they are variants not necessarily depending on the region.
en-1sgn for ASL, en-2sgn for BSL, etc. The "A" in ASL sounds
like en-021-signed instead of en-US-signed.
>> As long as that extension registry doesn't exist it's no
>> reason to reject the request.
> The extension registry does exist; it just happens to be
> empty right now.
Yeah, I meant the singleton s plus RfC plus its own registry.
Actually it's possible to get this right if you and John want
it, and it might be cleaner than twisting region codes into
new wild and wonderful contexts.
> Signed is not a kind of script. Scripts are written. The
> difference is between "spoken" and "written" and "signed."
But there are obviously different ways to sign, as shown by
your ASL vs. BSL. If somebody invents CSL, what are you going
to do, hope that it's in CA because it happens to be available
for en-CA-signed ?
More information about the Ietf-languages