sgn-MT [et al.]: new RFC 3066 tag[s]
gschweizer at gmx.at
Sun Oct 3 19:50:45 CEST 2004
Michael Everson wrote:
> I would very much like
> the scheme there to be adopted as a special case for "sgn" in RFC
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.
More information about the Ietf-languages