Language Subtag Registration Form: variant "signed"

John Cowan cowan at
Sun Feb 26 03:55:18 CET 2006

Doug Ewell scripsit:

> If we assign "en" as a prefix, we cannot subsequently split it into 
> "en-US" and "en-GB" and "en-IE".  (See Section 3.4, item 4.)  Doing so 
> would exclude "en-AU" and "en-CA" and others, narrowing the set of 
> prefixes rather than broadening it.  We can only start with a narrow set 
> of prefix definitions and broaden it, or else leave it alone.

Indeed, the current edition of Ethnologue speaks of
Australian Signed English on the Australian SL page .

> Then please propose an extension as per Section 3.7.  I'll work with you 
> on it if you like.  On the LTRU list I got a strong sense from most 
> participants (which I did not share) that extensions were a horrible 
> hack that should never actually come to pass.

Before getting formal about it, I'd like to get other input.  To
reiterate, this would look like sgn-US-s-en(-us), and would mean
a signed variety of (American) English using the signs of American SL.

I am expressing my opinion.  When my            John Cowan
honorable and gallant friend is called,         cowan at
he will express his opinion.  This is 
the process which we call Debate.                   --Winston Churchill

More information about the Ietf-languages mailing list