Language Subtag Registration Form: variant "signed"
petercon at microsoft.com
Mon Feb 27 07:52:46 CET 2006
> From: John Cowan [mailto:cowan at ccil.org]
> > I have no particular reason to rush signed languages in IETF language
> > tags. I very much wish you hadn't rushed a bunch of tags through five
> > years ago.
> They were needed then (according to Michael) and no less now. Hindsight
> is 20/20, after all, but the 3066bis model was not even a gleam in
> eye in 2001.
But at least some problems with the scheme were identified back then.
> > I would recommend that we not continue using region IDs for what is
> > identity. I'm willing to live with "sgn-..." since 20+ registered tags
> is a
> > non-insignificant precedent, but there's absolutely no good reason for
> > region IDs when we have an alternative.
> I'm not sure whether you're proposing at this point that we replace sgn-US
> with sgn-ase, or merely that we don't introduce any more such tags.
> I can live with the latter, but not the former.
I'm at least suggesting the latter -- indeed, I'm more than merely suggesting. I wouldn't object to the former, but I realize that raises valid concerns.
More information about the Ietf-languages