sgn-MT [et al.]: new RFC 3066 tag[s]
cowan at ccil.org
Sun Oct 3 18:12:26 CEST 2004
Michael Everson scripsit:
> I think the problem is that "sgn" does not refer to a language AT
> ALL, and (as I suggested once a long time a go) I think the RFC
> should define as SPECIAL syntax for what happens wit the prefix "sgn".
I tend to agree with this, for two reasons: because sign languages are
a special case, and because I don't want to upset the existing agreement.
> Then you would want to deprecate "sgn-IE" in favour of "sgn-isg", and
> I guess you will later want to deprecate that in favour of "isg"?
This is the sticky wicket for 639-3, and unless we solve it, we shall
get no forwarder.
> And what about Signed Spoken Languages? Those also MUST have country
> codes. "sgn-eng-IE" is different from "sgn-eng-US" and *very*
> different from "sgn-eng-GB". All of those are representations of
> spoken English.
> I do not relish explaining the proposed changes to the user
> community, which helped develop this scheme. I would very much like
> the scheme there to be adopted as a special case for "sgn" in RFC
The cost of doing so is relatively low, and I agree that we should.
[W]hen I wrote it I was more than a little John Cowan
febrile with foodpoisoning from an antique carrot cowan at ccil.org
that I foolishly ate out of an illjudged faith www.ccil.org/~cowan
in the benignancy of vegetables. --And Rosta www.reutershealth.com
More information about the Ietf-languages