Language Subtag Registration Form: variant "signed"
debbie at ictmarketing.co.uk
Mon Feb 27 17:13:25 CET 2006
> But I think the whole area needs another serious look.
As a corporate member of ASLI, I would happily consult in order to gain a UK
> -----Original Message-----
> From: ietf-languages-bounces at alvestrand.no [mailto:ietf-languages-
> bounces at alvestrand.no] On Behalf Of Michael Everson
> Sent: 27 February 2006 09:46
> To: IETF Languages Discussion
> Subject: RE: Language Subtag Registration Form: variant "signed"
> At 15:39 -0800 2006-02-26, Peter Constable wrote:
> > > 1) Do Sign Language tags *have* to be rushed?
> >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.
> > > 2) Do the Sign Language tags in 639-3 *have* to be accepted at this
> > > stage, or is there scope for further work on this (by pulling them
> > > out before publication)?
> >I know of no reason for the signed languages identified in
> >Ethnologue 15 not to be included in ISO 639-3.
> 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. 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.)
> Michael Everson * http://www.evertype.com
> Ietf-languages mailing list
> Ietf-languages at alvestrand.no
More information about the Ietf-languages