Peter Constable <petercon at microsoft dot com> wrote: > There is such a thing as a verbal language expressed using signs; e.g. > signed English. There may well be a need to have a tag to make this > distinction. I think a variant subtag for this purpose would be > satisfactory; e.g. "en-signed". In fact, I think this should be one of the first variant subtags requested. It opens the door for sensible tagging of the 16 signed spoken languages listed on Michael Everson's page, and possibly others. > There can be varietal linguistic distinctions -- dialect -- between > written versus spoken forms of a language, and some user may have a > need for tags to reflect such a distinction. What must be understood > is that this such a distinction between linguistic varieties is > orthogonal to the mode of expression: verbal versus writing. Again, > for the linguistic distinction, variant subtags are a reasonable and > appropriate. For the distinction between modes of expression, Mark has > pointed out that "Zxxx" can be used as a script subtag to indicate > that the information is unwritten (hence assumed to be verbal). What I don't understand about this whole discussion is why anyone would want to use a script subtag -- 'Zxxx' or anything else -- for spoken content in the first place. It's not like script subtags are ever required. -- Doug Ewell Fullerton, California http://users.adelphia.net/~dewell/ _______________________________________________ Ltru mailing list Ltru at lists.ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ltru
Note Well: Messages sent to this mailing list are the opinions of the senders and do not imply endorsement by the IETF.