Re: [Ltru] [psg.com #1033] Written Spoken Signed

["Randy Presuhn" <randy_presuhn at mindspring.com>]

Hi -

(as a technical contributor)

> > From: "Debbie Garside" <debbie at ictmarketing.co.uk>
> > To: <ltru at ietf.org>
> > Sent: Saturday, June 11, 2005 6:16 PM
> > Subject: [Ltru] Written Spoken Signed
> ...
> > An issue has been raised on the IETF with regard to the principle of
> > language tags for written, spoken (and signed) to be registered distinctly
> > as opposed to an "umbrella" tag that was perhaps designed initially for
> > written but is now being used to cover all.
> >
> > As the draft for ISO 639-6 currently supports separate tags for these -
> > language, written_language, spoken_language, signed_language - perhaps it
> > would be prudent to incorporate some text and a mechanism within 3066bis to
> > support the registering of such specific tags.
> >
> > Personally, I believe that in the future there will be a real need for
> > differentiating between them; it can only enhance archival and retrieval
> > processes.
...

I have some questions, from the perspective of matching.  How would I specify:
(1) I am willing to receive web content in Yiddish if it is spoken, or written
with Latin script, but not signed or in its "suppressed" Hebrew script?
(2) I am willing to receive web content written in Gothic (either its native
script, or its "suppressed" latin script), but not spoken or signed?
(3) I am willing to receive web content in German or any of its dialects if
written, but only "standard Hochdeutsch" or "Mannemerisch" if spoken, and not
at all if signed.

I clearly understand the rationale for making the signed forms distinct, and
why there is value to representing that in the language tag.  It seems that
the "spoken" form would, if we represent it at all in a language tag, be simplest
if handled like just another script.

Randy




_______________________________________________
Ltru mailing list
Ltru at lists.ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ltru