> From: ltru-bounces at ietf.org [mailto:ltru-bounces at ietf.org] On Behalf Of > Kent Karlsson > I still say that it is not even a possible interpretation of RFC 3066 > to remove the region code in these cases, no matter how the sgn-* tags > were discussed at registration time. > > The "US" part in "sgn-US" is and remains a region code, and the > appropriate target code (for Preferred-Value of the to-be-deprecated > tag sgn-US) should be "asl-US". I completely disagree. Section 2.2 of RFC 3066 does imply that "US" in "sgn-US" derives is to be interpreted as in ISO 3166 -- i.e. 'USA'. But that section says nothing whatsoever as to how that impacts the interpretation of "sgn-US" as a whole. While the tag "sgn-US" is "defined" by RFC 3066 in the sense of being sanctioned for use under the terms of that RFC, Section 3 of RFC 3066 indicates that such a tag can be registered to indicate the "definition" in the sense of the intended interpretation of the tag as a whole. The interpretation of the tag as a whole is made clear by the registration: ------------------ Name of requester : Michael Everson E-mail address of requester: everson&evertype.com Tag to be registered : sgn-US English name of language : American Sign Language Native name of language (transcribed into ASCII): American Sign Language, ASL Reference to published description of the language (book or article): Costello, Elaine. 1998. Random House Webster's American Sign Language Dictionary. New York: Random House. ISBN 0-679-78011-4 ------------------ To assume that "sgn-US" is synonymous with "ase-US" would imply one of two things, both of which are wrong: - It would suggest that "sgn" is synonymous with "ase", which clearly is not the case. - It would suggest that "sgn-US" be interpreted as "sgn-US" as "signed languages as used in the US". That could potentially mean a number of different languages, but that is definitely not the intent. The fact that (e.g.) 'American Sign Language as used in Canada' is not covered in the current LSR does not in any way imply that your analysis is correct: that semantic is not covered because no tag was registered, and the currently registered tag does *not* have the analogous semantic of "American Sign Language as used in the USA", as is clear from the relevant record in the LSR: Tag: sgn-US Description: American Sign Language Peter _______________________________________________ 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.