Registered sgn-* tags

[Peter Constable]

> From: ietf-languages-bounces at alvestrand.no [mailto:ietf-languages-
> bounces at alvestrand.no] On Behalf Of Doug Ewell

> Would these not have been valid under the generative grammar of RFC
> 3066?  We have sgn-BR for Brazilian Sign Language, sgn-CO for
Colombian
> Sign Language, and so forth.  How does this differ from "Sign
Languages
> as used in Brazil," "Sign Languages as used in Colombia," etc. which
> would be the interpretation according to the generative grammar?

These interpretations are *not* the same. There can be (and in some
cases are) multiple, distinct signed languages used in a single country.
The interpretation cannot be "Sign Languages as used in [country X]".


> I wasn't on this list when they were registered, so I missed the
> discussion.  Can someone summarize it for me?  I'm just trying to
> understand why it was felt necessary to register them instead of
letting
> them be generated.

These are cases in which it cannot simply be assumed that the semantics
of the whole can be derived by merely registering the semantics of the
subtag. (Mind you, when these things were registered a few years back, I
think I raised objections to the approach being taken for devising those
tags: I would have registered atomic subtags with the intended
semantics.)



Peter
 
Peter Constable
Globalization Infrastructure and Font Technologies
Microsoft Windows Division