From: ltru-bounces at ietf.org [mailto:ltru-bounces at ietf.org] On Behalf Of Lang Gérard > 1-Let me stress that I have, in fact, no "strenuous objection" > with the recent "discover" that "langage des signes" became > "langue des signes". But I have very strenuous objection about > rewriting history and do not understand the strenuous > resistance to the establishment of history. I agree without > problem that in the past decade "scientific progress" admitted > that "Sign languages" could be assimilated to "languages" > and registered inside ISO 639-3. But I want to be clearly > understood that this was not in the intended scope of ISO 639 > (and of ISO 639-1 and ISO 639-2) until 2000. What is the ultimate point of this argument about history? Suppose we all agree that the creators of the original ISO 639 standard did not intend signed languages to be within the scope of that standard. So what? What bearing does that have on the work of this working group? (None whatsoever that I can see.) > And I cannot prevent me to think that this "discover" is not > completely independant of "political correctness". Call it "political correctness" if you like. In practical terms -- which I think is all that this WG cares about in this case -- there are real needs to provide language tags for signed-language content, ISO 639-x currently provides identifiers that are useful for that purpose, and the WG intends to make use of those to accommodate those needs in RFC 4646bis. 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.