Peter Constable <petercon at microsoft dot com> wrote: >> 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. > > What page? (I can't find anything on signed languages at > evertype.com.) http://www.evertype.com/standards/iso639/sgn.html Note that none of the three-part tags in Tables A and B, nor any in Table C, would be valid in RFC 3066bis. The ones in Table A are already grandfathered. >> It's not like script subtags are ever required. > > No, they're not; but if someone wanted a way to explicitly indicate > that some content was (say) verbal -- unwritten -- English, they could > use "en-Zxxx" in contrast to "en". Just like someone *could* use > "en-Latn" to explicitly distinguish English in Latin orthography from > something else. I don't think there'd be any great need for it, but > someone could do it if it met a need. OK; the way the discussion was headed, it sounded like this would be a common occurrence. -- 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.