Language Subtag Registration Form: variant "signed"

Addison Phillips addison at
Tue Feb 28 21:56:08 CET 2006

+1, except...

I think it might be a good thing if the ISO 639-3 codes proposed for sign
languages were registered by ISO 639-2. Then NO internet-drafts would be
necessary. None of this has any bearing on RFC 3066bis, which is perfectly
fine for identifying languages regardless of how they are
signaled---provided appropriate subtags are available and, as John points
out, both existing registrations and the overall process allows for them to
be available.


Addison Phillips
Internationalization Architect - Yahoo! Inc.

Internationalization is an architecture.
It is not a feature. 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: ietf-languages-bounces at [mailto:ietf-languages-
> bounces at] On Behalf Of John Cowan
> Sent: 2006?2?28? 12:24
> To: Randy Presuhn
> Cc: ietf-languages at
> Subject: Re: Language Subtag Registration Form: variant "signed"
> 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
> 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.   
>         --Bilbo                       
> _______________________________________________
> Ietf-languages mailing list
> Ietf-languages at

More information about the Ietf-languages mailing list