Language Subtag Registration Form: variant "signed"

[Debbie Garside]

Peter wrote:

> We're not discussing records that document how languages work; we're
> talking about metadata elements that merely *identify* languages, and that
> get used in processes for matching content to requests based on language
> identity.

+1



> -----Original Message-----
> From: ietf-languages-bounces at alvestrand.no [mailto:ietf-languages-
> bounces at alvestrand.no] On Behalf Of Peter Constable
> Sent: 27 February 2006 14:03
> To: IETF Languages Discussion
> Subject: RE: Language Subtag Registration Form: variant "signed"
> 
> > From: ietf-languages-bounces at alvestrand.no [mailto:ietf-languages-
> > bounces at alvestrand.no] On Behalf Of Michael Everson
> 
> 
> > >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.
> >
> > Five years ago I was responding to a user request for a number of tags.
> 
> For how many of the 22 registered tags can you point to real uses? I tried
> some searches on MSN and Google and (apart from discussions of language
> tags) found only the SignBank site, which I'm guessing was the source of
> your user request.
> 
> The SignBank site is hardly a stellar example of use of registered
> language tags:
> 
> - One of the 22 registered tags, sgn-ZA, they don't use at all.
> - They've been using 21 tags that weren't registered.
> 
> Of the un-registered tags, there are twelve they can claim are sanctioned
> (quite unfortunately, IMO) by 3066bis:
> 
> sgn-AU: 17 entries
> sgn-CZ: 533 entries
> sgn-ET: 87 entries
> sgn-FI: 32 entries
> sgn-MT: 0 entries
> sgn-MY*: 3 entries
> sgn-NG: 0 entries
> sgn-NZ: 37 entries
> sgn-PH: 693 entries
> sgn-PL: 1644 entries
> sgn-SI: 14 entries
> sgn-TW: 57 entries
> 
> (*I'll note that I questioned the merits of this scheme precisely in
> relation to signed languages of Malaysia because there are at least three
> distinct signed languages spoken in Malayasia and "sgn-MY..." leads to
> matching problems.)
> 
> They've used six that follow the examples of certain registered tags but
> that *cannot* be registered under 3066bis:
> sgn-CA-fr "Quebec SL": 5 entries
> sgn-CH-fr "Swiss-French SL": 622 entries
> sgn-CH-it "Swiss-Italian SL": 5 entries
> sgn-ES-ct "Catalonian SL": 11 entries
> sgn-GB-ie "Northern Ireland SL": 54
> sgn-US-lit "ASL Literature": 22
> 
> They've also used three that actually contradict ISO 3166-1:
> sgn-AE "Arabic Nations" (AE = United Arabic Emirates) -- 4 entries
> sgn-EO "Signuno" (EO is unassigned) -- 2808 entries
> sgn-WO "International Signs" (WO "must not be used in ISO 3166-1"): 42
> entries
> 
> We need not have rushed back then since it appears they were going to do
> their own thing whether we registered tags or not.
> 
> John Cowan has insisted that we can't deprecate the existing tags, but we
> might keep in mind that tags have been deprecated before, and for these
> cases we have one known user. And it's not like they got a million
> records: for a handful of tags they have thousands of records in their
> lexical DB:
> 
> sgn-CH-de: 4765
> sgn-US:    4515
> sgn-DE:    3061
> sgn-BE-nl: 2235
> sgn-BE-fr: 1381
> 
> 
> For most of the registered tags, the numbers are rather smaller:
> sgn-NI: 894
> sgn-FR: 840
> sgn-NO: 379
> sgn-GB: 183
> sgn-JP: 172
> sgn-MX: 172
> sgn-BR: 171
> sgn-GR:  24
> sgn-CO:  21
> sgn-ES:  21
> sgn-IE:  17
> sgn-IT:   9
> sgn-NL:   9
> sgn-SE:   3
> sgn-DK:   0
> sgn-PT:   0
> 
> And as mentioned above, they don't appear to use sgn-ZA at all.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> > I think that Sign Languages work differently and interact differently
> > with spoken languages than spoken languages interact with one
> > another. I think they ought to have their own namespace (e.g., sgn-),
> > not just be lumped in with 6000 other spoken languages.
> 
> We're not discussing records that document how languages work; we're
> talking about metadata elements that merely *identify* languages, and that
> get used in processes for matching content to requests based on language
> identity.
> 
> 
> > I think the
> > Ethnologue taxonomy doesn't handle "signed spoken languages" well,
> > and I think that all of those three-letter codes should be pulloed
> > from 639-3 until we can discuss and clarify the matter with Gallaudet
> > etc. They can always been added to 639-3 in due course. But I think
> > the whole area needs another serious look. (And I'm willing to put
> > the RFC 3066 tags on the table if the 639-3 tags are.)
> 
> Please clarify that last statement.
> 
> 
> 
> Peter Constable
> _______________________________________________
> Ietf-languages mailing list
> Ietf-languages at alvestrand.no
> http://www.alvestrand.no/mailman/listinfo/ietf-languages