sgn-MT [et al.]: new RFC 3066 tag[s]

[Georg Schweizer]

Michael Everson wrote:
> I would very much like
> the scheme there to be adopted as a special case for "sgn" in RFC
> 3066bis.

John Cowan wrote:
> The cost of doing so is relatively low, and I agree that we should.

I still think that we should retain the possibility to register generic 
extensions (e.g., ISO 3166 codes as sub-tags of ISO 639 codes).

    ... for instance if one wishes to
    make publicly available a reference to the definition for a language
    such as sgn-US (American Sign Language). [Sec. 3, RFC 3066]

In fact the choice of “sgn-US” for any sign language other than ASL 
would not be valid anyway, because tags will have to be chosen “as 
precise as possible, but no more specific than is justified” [Sec. 2.3, 
RFC 3066bis draft-06].
Thus it appears that (under RFC 3066bis) the registration of such a 
generic language tag would not contravene earlier semantics.

The only thing I’m afraid of is that this could lead to a long list of 
unnecessarily registered codes. I suggest to add another criteria than 
the desire for “publicly available reference”, one that could also be 
applied to “sgn” extensions.

—Georg