Language Subtag Registration Form: variant "signed"

John Cowan cowan at
Tue Feb 28 21:24:27 CET 2006

Randy Presuhn scripsit:

>     (1) the discussion of the general approach to the tagging of
>          sign(ed) languages be moved to ltru at

At the moment, there is no consensus that anything ought or ought not
to be done at the RFC level.   All this is just talk.

>     (2) internet-drafts be written as needed
>     (3) upon completion of the matching work, the ltru WG could,
>          if (1) and (2) demonstrate that 3066bis needs augmentation
>          for sign(ed) languages, make a request of the IESG to add
>          such work to our deliverables, either as a separate item or
>          in conjunction with an eventual 3066ter.

Signed languages will have to be considered as part of 3066ter, which is
about 639-3-based language tags (which includes tags for signed languages).
The existing hacks will work fine for the 3066bis regime.

> I emphasize that completion of the matching draft must remain our
> top priority in ltru, and that work on extensions or explanations of
> tagging of sign(ed) languages should not be allowed to become a
> gating item for 3066bis.

It isn't.

I don't know half of you half as well           John Cowan
as I should like, and I like less than half     cowan at
of you half as well as you deserve.   

More information about the Ietf-languages mailing list