Re: [Ltru] draft updated

[John Cowan <cowan at ccil.org>]

Kent Karlsson scripsit:

> * for 'ar' we are about to add 30 extlangs, *none* of which are
> "extlangish" in the current LSR.

Indeed, which is why I oppose adding 'ar' extlangs (but not strongly).

> * for 'zh' we are about to add 13 extlangs, *only four* of which
> are "extlangish" in the current LSR (cmn, gan, wuu, yue).

True, but "zh-hakka", "zh-min-nan", and "zh-xiang" are essentially
similar except for their syntax.  That makes 7 out of 13.

> * for 'sgn' we are about to add 132 extlangs, *none* of which are
> "extlangish" in the current LSR.

Also true, but 22 existing tags for sign languages already begin
with "sgn-".

> Was there "rough consensus" to add extlangs for any other primary
> languages tags (none of which would be "extlangish" in the current LSR)?

We also talked about:

Konkani (2 extlangs, 0 in place)
Malay (15 extlangs, 0 in place, 1 deprecated)
Swahili (2 extlangs, 0 in place)
Uzbek (2 extlangs, 0 in place)

All of these are macrolangauges that, like Chinese and Arabic, have
single dominant varieties.

> B.t.w., should not the preferred value for the grandfathered
> sign language tags maintain the region, like:
>  
> g.f. tag	cur. p.v.	p.v. keeping region
> sgn-BE-FR	sfb	 	sbf-BE (or sgn-sbf-BE)
> sgn-BE-NL	vgt		vgt-BE (or sgn-vgt-BE)
> sgn-CH-DE	sgg		sgg-CH (or sgn-sgg-CH)

sgn-ase (American Sign Language) is spoken in at least 20 countries
beside the U.S.  Treating sgn-ase-US as equivalent to sgn-ase would be
erroneous, as there are undoubtedly local variations.

-- 
Using RELAX NG compact syntax to        John Cowan <cowan at ccil.org>
develop schemas is one of the simple    http://www.ccil.org/~cowan
pleasures in life....
        --Jeni Tennison                 <cowan at ccil.org>
_______________________________________________
Ltru mailing list
Ltru at ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ltru