Doug Ewell wrote: > These would mean: > > (sgn-)sfb-BE French Belgian Sign Language as used in Belgium > (sgn-)vgt-BE Flemish Sign Language as used in Belgium > (sgn-)sgg-CH Swiss-German Sign Language as used in Germany etc. for grandfathered sgn-NN tags. > which are not how the original grandfathered tags are defined. > > The region-subtag-looking-thingies in "sgn-XX" were never true region > subtags. That was the big problem with those tags; they did not mean > quite what they looked like. "sgn-US" was registered as meaning > "American Sign Language," which is not really the same as "sign > languages as used in the United States," which is what you get if you > take "sgn-US" apart. Admittedly this was a bit more plausible in 2001, > when we were still fooling ourselves that there was no generative > mechanism and tags were completely atomic. The <language code>-<region code> tags have been generative since RFC 1766. And both RFC 1766 and RFC 3066 say (without exception!) that the two-letter second subtags are region subtags (here the 1766 formulation; slighly expanded, but still no exeptions, in RFC 3066): | - All 2-letter codes are interpreted as ISO 3166 alpha-2 | country codes denoting the area in which the language is | used. I see that as implying that there is an implicit "as used in the US" part of the description of "sgn-US", even though that is not part of the description for "sgn-US" in the registry. (Etc. for the other sgn-* grandfathered tags.) /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.