John Cowan wrote: > > 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. But that wasn't my (semi)suggestion. My (semi)suggestion was that sgn-US be preferred-value-mapped to ase-US rather than to just ase (or sgn-ase) (and similarly for the other sgn- grandfathered tags). I.e. to keep the *already existing* region subtag. NOT that sgn-ase-US would be "equivalent" to sgn-ase (or ase). I certainly don't want to rule out ase-CA (sgn-ase-CA) and others. Just that the grandfathered tag maybe should *keep* the region part in the preferred value *the grandfathered sgn- tags map to*. And... Hmm, sign languages aren't really spoken, they are signed... But they can be written using mechanisms such as Sutton Sign Writing (http://www.signwriting.org/). /kent k _______________________________________________ Ltru mailing list Ltru at ietf.org https://www.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.