Re: [EXTERNAL] Re: language identifiers for sign languages (incl. sgn) vs. attribute for indicating the representation of an individual language in "sign language modality"
<[email protected]> Thu, 28 Nov 2019 12:14:50 -0300
| Newsgroups | gmane.ietf.languages |
|---|---|
| Message-ID | <[email protected]> |
This is a multipart message in MIME format. --===============3451519193611049881== Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_0226_01D5A5E5.756E14A0" Content-Language: en-gb This is a multipart message in MIME format. ------=_NextPart_000_0226_01D5A5E5.756E14A0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Dear Doug and all, =EF=BF=BD [DE]> Note that the NWIP, as of 2016, offered no code elements, nor any = clues as to how code elements would be formulated, what they would look = like, or where or how the list of code elements would be maintained = [=E2=80=A6]. =EF=BF=BD That is largely true, as in particular the coding of thousands and = thousands of dialectal varieties is something which needs to be = carefully established. ISO 21636 only lays the ground, providing a framework that recognizes = the different dimensions of language variation, and providing a = consistent terminology for the resulting varieties. It does indicate, = however, some =E2=80=9Cclues as to how code elements would be = formulated=E2=80=9D =E2=80=93: explicitly, using English in an = international context, etc. =EF=BF=BD I strongly disagree that ISO 21636 would be =E2=80=9Cunsuitable for = discussion in the context of BCP 47=E2=80=9D, although it is evidently = not yet ready for a direct implementation. In my understanding, once = ISO 21636 is established / accepted, the next step would be to set up a = central registration mechanism for individual varieties. Expanding the = IANA language subtag registry or creating a similar entity would be one = possible way to go, and interoperability with BCP 47 or its successor = systems is of paramount importance. I argue that the discussion about = how BCP 47 could accommodate ISO 21636 should start sooner rather than = later. =EF=BF=BD I am very interested in proposals about how to implement a registry for = the concrete labels for language varieties building on the ISO 21636 = framework. However, at this point getting this document approved is the priority = for ISO TC37/SC2/WG1. =EF=BF=BD For the modality dimension, however, we could think of establishing a = comprehensive system already now, because the modalities are a closed = and small set which is in principle universal (although not all = languages make use of all modalities). Tags: * Spoken * Multimodal * Written * Signed * Haptic * Whistled * Drummed * AAC * ?? (what would be a good term for the use of wind instruments?) * =E2=80=A6 (and possibly a very few others) =EF=BF=BD Best, Sebastian --=20 Museu P.E. Goeldi, CCH, Linguistica =EF=BF=BD =E2=96=AA =EF=BF=BDAv. = Perimetral, 1901 Terra Firme, CEP: 66077-530 =EF=BF=BD =E2=96=AA =EF=BF=BD Bel=C3=A9m do = Par=C3=A1 =E2=80=93 PA =EF=BF=BD=E2=96=AA =EF=BF=BD Brazil [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]> =EF=BF=BD=E2=96=AA =EF=BF=BD = +55 (91) 3217 6024 =EF=BF=BD From: Doug Ewell <[email protected]>=20 Sent: Sunday, November 24, 2019 8:07 PM To: 'Christian Galinski' <[email protected]>; 'Fourney, = David' <[email protected]>; 'Peter Constable' = <[email protected]>; [email protected]; 'Debra Russell' = <[email protected]>; 'John Cowan' <[email protected]>; [email protected]; = 'Debra Russell' <[email protected]> Cc: 'ietf-languages' <[email protected]>; 'Sebastian Drude' = <[email protected]>; [email protected]; 'Gary Simons' = <[email protected]>; '105-5-03 Hein, Anja' = <[email protected]> Subject: RE: [EXTERNAL] Re: [Ietf-languages] language identifiers for = sign languages (incl. sgn) vs. attribute for indicating the = representation of an individual language in "sign language modality" =EF=BF=BD Christian Galinski wrote: =EF=BF=BD > In any case, the issue of =E2=80=9Csigning=E2=80=9D =E2=80=93 = including dialects, levels of > performance, combinations of regional variants, etc. =E2=80=93 is more = complex > than can be dealt with in the ISO 639 series. Furthermore, similar > phenomena exist for drummed, whistled, haptic (and other languages and > language modalities), which may have to be considered in the future. > [Particularly in the field of education (and assistive technologies > applied to support interhuman communication) there is a lot of > development in this direction.] =EF=BF=BD BCP 47, at least, doesn=E2=80=99t try to cover all of the modality = possibilities that are covered by, for example, the ISO/TC 37/SC 2 NWIP = =E2=80=9CIdentification and description of language varieties,=E2=80=9D = which was voted on in 2016 and which also attempts to cover regional = spoken accents, time frames, proficiency levels, speech impairments, = =E2=80=9Cmotherese,=E2=80=9D and much more. =EF=BF=BD If there is a standard (or part) on the horizon that will provide a = coded representation of modalities in a way that is compatible with = other ISO 639 parts, and could conceivably be made to work within BCP = 47, then I would argue strongly against trying to extend BCP 47 or any = other ISO 639 part to accommodate this. Otherwise we will have duplicate = coding, with all the confusion that duplicate coding normally brings. =EF=BF=BD Note that the NWIP, as of 2016, offered no code elements, nor any clues = as to how code elements would be formulated, what they would look like, = or where or how the list of code elements would be maintained, making = the proposal unsuitable for discussion in the context of BCP 47. =EF=BF=BD > b. =E2=80=9Csgn=E2=80=9D attributed to a language identifier of an = individual language > (not being a sign language) could indicate one or the other kind of > =E2=80=9Csigned language variety=E2=80=9D =E2=80=93 e.g. (in ISO 639) = =E2=80=9Ceng-sgn=E2=80=9D =3D English in > signed language variety and =E2=80=93 if differentiation necessary = =E2=80=93 > =E2=80=9Ceng-UK-sgn=E2=80=9D British English in signed language = variety > c. =E2=80=9Csgn=E2=80=9D attributed to a language identifier of an = =E2=80=9Cindividual sign > language=E2=80=9D could be used to make individual sign languages = identifiable > and searchable =E2=80=93 e.g. (in ISO 639) =E2=80=9Case-sgn=E2=80=9D = =3D American Sign Language > (ASL) and =E2=80=93 if differentiation is necessary =E2=80=93 = =E2=80=9Case-CA-sgn=E2=80=9D Canadian > variant of American Sign Language > =EF=BF=BD > If this use of =E2=80=9Csgn=E2=80=9D is not useful/reasonable for ISO = 639 principles, > please feel free to suggest alternatives. =EF=BF=BD My understanding of ISO 639 is that combination of code elements like = this is not within its domain, but left to follow-on standards such as = BCP 47. =EF=BF=BD BCP 47 has a very well-defined syntax with clear, stable rules about = which types of subtags can go where. Inserting =E2=80=9Csgn=E2=80=9D or = any three-letter string after a region subtag, or omitting the region = subtag and inverting the order of primary and extended language subtags = (putting =E2=80=9Csgn=E2=80=9D after =E2=80=9Case=E2=80=9D), is not = permitted in BCP 47. =EF=BF=BD =E2=80=9Ceng=E2=80=9D is also not permitted for = =E2=80=9CEnglish=E2=80=9D in a BCP 47 tag. The subtag for English is = =E2=80=9Cen=E2=80=9D, derived from the ISO 639-1 code element. =EF=BF=BD If this problem is one to be solved within BCP 47 (which I am = increasingly convinced it may not be; see above), then the syntactical = and constraints of BCP 47 must be adhered to. This is the only way = parsers can know what the components of a tag are. This point is not = negotiable. =EF=BF=BD -- Doug Ewell | Thornton, CO, US | ewellic.org =EF=BF=BD ------=_NextPart_000_0226_01D5A5E5.756E14A0 Content-Type: text/html; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable <html xmlns:v=3D"urn:schemas-microsoft-com:vml" = xmlns:o=3D"urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" = xmlns:w=3D"urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:word" = xmlns:m=3D"http://schemas.microsoft.com/office/2004/12/omml" = xmlns=3D"http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40"><head><meta = http-equiv=3DContent-Type content=3D"text/html; charset=3Dutf-8"><meta = name=3DGenerator content=3D"Microsoft Word 15 (filtered = medium)"><style><!-- /* Font Definitions */ @font-face {font-family:Wingdings; panose-1:5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0;} @font-face {font-family:"Cambria Math"; panose-1:2 4 5 3 5 4 6 3 2 4;} @font-face {font-family:Calibri; panose-1:2 15 5 2 2 2 4 3 2 4;} @font-face {font-family:Consolas; panose-1:2 11 6 9 2 2 4 3 2 4;} /* Style Definitions */ p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal {margin:0cm; margin-bottom:.0001pt; font-size:11.0pt; font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;} a:link, span.MsoHyperlink {mso-style-priority:99; color:#0563C1; text-decoration:underline;} a:visited, span.MsoHyperlinkFollowed {mso-style-priority:99; color:#954F72; text-decoration:underline;} p.MsoPlainText, li.MsoPlainText, div.MsoPlainText {mso-style-priority:99; mso-style-link:"Plain Text Char"; margin:0cm; margin-bottom:.0001pt; font-size:11.0pt; font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;} p.MsoListParagraph, li.MsoListParagraph, div.MsoListParagraph {mso-style-priority:34; margin-top:0cm; margin-right:0cm; margin-bottom:0cm; margin-left:36.0pt; margin-bottom:.0001pt; font-size:11.0pt; font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;} p.msonormal0, li.msonormal0, div.msonormal0 {mso-style-name:msonormal; mso-margin-top-alt:auto; margin-right:0cm; mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto; margin-left:0cm; font-size:11.0pt; font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;} span.PlainTextChar {mso-style-name:"Plain Text Char"; mso-style-priority:99; mso-style-link:"Plain Text"; font-family:Consolas;} span.NurTextZchn {mso-style-name:"Nur Text Zchn"; mso-style-priority:99; mso-style-link:"Nur Text"; font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;} p.NurText, li.NurText, div.NurText {mso-style-name:"Nur Text"; mso-style-link:"Nur Text Zchn"; margin:0cm; margin-bottom:.0001pt; font-size:11.0pt; font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;} span.EmailStyle22 {mso-style-type:personal;} span.EmailStyle23 {mso-style-type:personal; font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif; color:windowtext;} span.EmailStyle24 {mso-style-type:personal-reply; font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif; color:windowtext;} ..MsoChpDefault {mso-style-type:export-only; font-size:10.0pt;} @page WordSection1 {size:612.0pt 792.0pt; margin:70.85pt 70.85pt 2.0cm 70.85pt;} div.WordSection1 {page:WordSection1;} /* List Definitions */ @list l0 {mso-list-id:1242134492; mso-list-type:hybrid; mso-list-template-ids:215018614 1657194020 134807555 134807557 = 134807553 134807555 134807557 134807553 134807555 134807557;} @list l0:level1 {mso-level-number-format:bullet; mso-level-text:=E2=80=93; mso-level-tab-stop:none; mso-level-number-position:left; text-indent:-18.0pt; font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif; mso-fareast-font-family:Calibri;} @list l0:level2 {mso-level-number-format:bullet; mso-level-text:o; mso-level-tab-stop:none; mso-level-number-position:left; text-indent:-18.0pt; font-family:"Courier New";} @list l0:level3 {mso-level-number-format:bullet; mso-level-text:=EF=82=A7; mso-level-tab-stop:none; mso-level-number-position:left; text-indent:-18.0pt; font-family:Wingdings;} @list l0:level4 {mso-level-number-format:bullet; mso-level-text:=EF=82=B7; mso-level-tab-stop:none; mso-level-number-position:left; text-indent:-18.0pt; font-family:Symbol;} @list l0:level5 {mso-level-number-format:bullet; mso-level-text:o; mso-level-tab-stop:none; mso-level-number-position:left; text-indent:-18.0pt; font-family:"Courier New";} @list l0:level6 {mso-level-number-format:bullet; mso-level-text:=EF=82=A7; mso-level-tab-stop:none; mso-level-number-position:left; text-indent:-18.0pt; font-family:Wingdings;} @list l0:level7 {mso-level-number-format:bullet; mso-level-text:=EF=82=B7; mso-level-tab-stop:none; mso-level-number-position:left; text-indent:-18.0pt; font-family:Symbol;} @list l0:level8 {mso-level-number-format:bullet; mso-level-text:o; mso-level-tab-stop:none; mso-level-number-position:left; text-indent:-18.0pt; font-family:"Courier New";} @list l0:level9 {mso-level-number-format:bullet; mso-level-text:=EF=82=A7; mso-level-tab-stop:none; mso-level-number-position:left; text-indent:-18.0pt; font-family:Wingdings;} ol {margin-bottom:0cm;} ul {margin-bottom:0cm;} --></style><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml> <o:shapedefaults v:ext=3D"edit" spidmax=3D"1026" /> </xml><![endif]--><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml> <o:shapelayout v:ext=3D"edit"> <o:idmap v:ext=3D"edit" data=3D"1" /> </o:shapelayout></xml><![endif]--></head><body lang=3DEN-GB = link=3D"#0563C1" vlink=3D"#954F72"><div class=3DWordSection1><p = class=3DMsoNormal><span = style=3D'font-size:12.0pt;mso-fareast-language:EN-US'>Dear Doug and = all,<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=3DMsoNormal><span = style=3D'font-size:12.0pt;mso-fareast-language:EN-US'><o:p> </o:p></= span></p><p class=3DMsoNormal><i><span = style=3D'font-size:12.0pt;mso-fareast-language:EN-US'>[DE]> = </span></i><i><span lang=3DEN-US>Note that the NWIP, as of 2016, offered = no code elements, nor any clues as to how code elements would be = formulated, what they would look like, or where or how the list of code = elements would be maintained [=E2=80=A6].<o:p></o:p></span></i></p><p = class=3DMsoNormal><span lang=3DEN-US><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p = class=3DMsoNormal><span lang=3DEN-US>That is largely true, as in = particular the coding of thousands and thousands of dialectal varieties = is something which needs to be carefully = established.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=3DMsoNormal><span = lang=3DEN-US>ISO 21636 only lays the ground, providing a framework that = recognizes the different dimensions of language variation, and providing = a consistent terminology for the resulting varieties. It does indicate, = however, some =E2=80=9Cclues as to how code elements would be = formulated=E2=80=9D =E2=80=93: explicitly, using English in an = international context, etc.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p = class=3DMsoNormal><span lang=3DEN-US><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p = class=3DMsoNormal><span lang=3DEN-US>I strongly disagree that ISO 21636 = would be <i>=E2=80=9Cunsuitable for discussion in the context of BCP = 47=E2=80=9D</i>, although it is evidently not yet ready for a direct = implementation.=C2=A0 In my understanding, once ISO 21636 is established = / accepted, the next step would be to set up a central registration = mechanism for individual varieties. Expanding the IANA language subtag = registry or creating a similar entity would be one possible way to go, = and interoperability with BCP 47 or its successor systems is of = paramount importance. I argue that the discussion about how BCP 47 could = accommodate ISO 21636 should start sooner rather than = later.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=3DMsoNormal><span = lang=3DEN-US><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=3DMsoNormal><span = lang=3DEN-US>I am very interested in proposals about how to implement a = registry for the concrete labels for language varieties building on the = ISO 21636 framework.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=3DMsoNormal><span = lang=3DEN-US>However, at this point getting this document approved is = the priority for ISO TC37/SC2/WG1.</span><span = style=3D'font-size:12.0pt;mso-fareast-language:EN-US'><o:p></o:p></span><= /p><p class=3DMsoNormal><span = style=3D'font-size:12.0pt;mso-fareast-language:EN-US'><o:p> </o:p></= span></p><p class=3DMsoNormal><span lang=3DEN-US>For the modality = dimension, however, we could think of establishing a comprehensive = system already now, because the modalities are a closed and small set = which is in principle universal (although not all languages make use of = all modalities).<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=3DMsoNormal><span = lang=3DEN-US>Tags:<o:p></o:p></span></p><ul style=3D'margin-top:0cm' = type=3Ddisc><li class=3DMsoListParagraph = style=3D'margin-left:0cm;mso-list:l0 level1 lfo1'><span lang=3DEN-US = style=3D'text-transform:uppercase'>Spoken<o:p></o:p></span></li><li = class=3DMsoListParagraph style=3D'margin-left:0cm;mso-list:l0 level1 = lfo1'><span lang=3DEN-US = style=3D'text-transform:uppercase'>Multimodal<o:p></o:p></span></li><li = class=3DMsoListParagraph style=3D'margin-left:0cm;mso-list:l0 level1 = lfo1'><span lang=3DEN-US = style=3D'text-transform:uppercase'>Written<o:p></o:p></span></li><li = class=3DMsoListParagraph style=3D'margin-left:0cm;mso-list:l0 level1 = lfo1'><span lang=3DEN-US = style=3D'text-transform:uppercase'>Signed<o:p></o:p></span></li><li = class=3DMsoListParagraph style=3D'margin-left:0cm;mso-list:l0 level1 = lfo1'><span lang=3DEN-US = style=3D'text-transform:uppercase'>Haptic<o:p></o:p></span></li><li = class=3DMsoListParagraph style=3D'margin-left:0cm;mso-list:l0 level1 = lfo1'><span lang=3DEN-US = style=3D'text-transform:uppercase'>Whistled<o:p></o:p></span></li><li = class=3DMsoListParagraph style=3D'margin-left:0cm;mso-list:l0 level1 = lfo1'><span lang=3DEN-US = style=3D'text-transform:uppercase'>Drummed<o:p></o:p></span></li><li = class=3DMsoListParagraph style=3D'margin-left:0cm;mso-list:l0 level1 = lfo1'><span lang=3DEN-US>AAC<o:p></o:p></span></li><li = class=3DMsoListParagraph style=3D'margin-left:0cm;mso-list:l0 level1 = lfo1'><span lang=3DEN-US>?? (what would be a good term for the use of = wind instruments?)<o:p></o:p></span></li><li class=3DMsoListParagraph = style=3D'margin-left:0cm;mso-list:l0 level1 lfo1'><span = lang=3DEN-US>=E2=80=A6 (and possibly a very few = others)<o:p></o:p></span></li></ul><p class=3DMsoNormal><span = lang=3DEN-US = style=3D'font-size:12.0pt;mso-fareast-language:EN-US'><o:p> </o:p></= span></p><p class=3DMsoNormal><span lang=3DEN-US = style=3D'font-size:12.0pt;mso-fareast-language:EN-US'>Best,<o:p></o:p></s= pan></p><div><p class=3DMsoNormal>Sebastian<o:p></o:p></p><p = class=3DMsoNormal><span lang=3DPT-BR>-- <o:p></o:p></span></p><p = class=3DMsoNormal><span lang=3DPT-BR>Museu P.E. Goeldi, CCH, = Linguistica =E2=96=AA Av. Perimetral, = 1901<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=3DMsoNormal><span lang=3DPT-BR>Terra = Firme, CEP: 66077-530 =E2=96=AA Bel=C3=A9m do Par=C3=A1 = =E2=80=93 PA =E2=96=AA Brazil<o:p></o:p></span></p><p = class=3DMsoNormal><u><span lang=3DPT-BR style=3D'color:#0563C1'><a = href=3D"mailto:[email protected]">[email protected]</a></span></u><span = lang=3DPT-BR> =E2=96=AA +55 (91) 3217 = 6024<o:p></o:p></span></p></div><p class=3DMsoNormal><span = style=3D'font-size:12.0pt;mso-fareast-language:EN-US'><o:p> </o:p></= span></p><div><div style=3D'border:none;border-top:solid #E1E1E1 = 1.0pt;padding:3.0pt 0cm 0cm 0cm'><p class=3DMsoNormal><b><span = lang=3DEN-US>From:</span></b><span lang=3DEN-US> Doug Ewell = <[email protected]> <br><b>Sent:</b> Sunday, November 24, 2019 8:07 = PM<br><b>To:</b> 'Christian Galinski' = <[email protected]>; 'Fourney, David' = <[email protected]>; 'Peter Constable' = <[email protected]>; [email protected]; 'Debra Russell' = <[email protected]>; 'John Cowan' <[email protected]>; = [email protected]; 'Debra Russell' <[email protected]><br><b>Cc:</b> = 'ietf-languages' <[email protected]>; 'Sebastian Drude' = <[email protected]>; [email protected]; 'Gary = Simons' <[email protected]>; '105-5-03 Hein, Anja' = <[email protected]><br><b>Subject:</b> RE: [EXTERNAL] = Re: [Ietf-languages] language identifiers for sign languages (incl. sgn) = vs. attribute for indicating the representation of an individual = language in "sign language = modality"<o:p></o:p></span></p></div></div><p = class=3DMsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p><p class=3DMsoNormal><span = lang=3DEN-US>Christian Galinski wrote:<o:p></o:p></span></p><p = class=3DMsoNormal><span lang=3DEN-US><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p = class=3DMsoNormal><span lang=3DEN-US>> In any case, the issue of = =E2=80=9Csigning=E2=80=9D =E2=80=93 including dialects, levels = of<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=3DMsoNormal><span lang=3DEN-US>> = performance, combinations of regional variants, etc. =E2=80=93 is more = complex<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=3DMsoNormal><span = lang=3DEN-US>> than can be dealt with in the ISO 639 series. = Furthermore, similar<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=3DMsoNormal><span = lang=3DEN-US>> phenomena exist for drummed, whistled, haptic (and = other languages and<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=3DMsoNormal><span = lang=3DEN-US>> language modalities), which may have to be considered = in the future.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=3DMsoNormal><span = lang=3DEN-US>> [Particularly in the field of education (and assistive = technologies<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=3DMsoNormal><span = lang=3DEN-US>> applied to support interhuman communication) there is = a lot of<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=3DMsoNormal><span = lang=3DEN-US>> development in this = direction.]<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=3DMsoNormal><span = lang=3DEN-US><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=3DMsoNormal><span = lang=3DEN-US>BCP 47, at least, doesn=E2=80=99t try to cover all of the = modality possibilities that are covered by, for example, the ISO/TC = 37/SC 2 NWIP =E2=80=9CIdentification and description of language = varieties,=E2=80=9D which was voted on in 2016 and which also attempts = to cover regional spoken accents, time frames, proficiency levels, = speech impairments, =E2=80=9Cmotherese,=E2=80=9D and much = more.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=3DMsoNormal><span = lang=3DEN-US><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=3DMsoNormal><span = lang=3DEN-US>If there is a standard (or part) on the horizon that will = provide a coded representation of modalities in a way that is compatible = with other ISO 639 parts, and could conceivably be made to work within = BCP 47, then I would argue strongly against trying to extend BCP 47 or = any other ISO 639 part to accommodate this. Otherwise we will have = duplicate coding, with all the confusion that duplicate coding normally = brings.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=3DMsoNormal><span = lang=3DEN-US><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=3DMsoNormal><span = lang=3DEN-US>Note that the NWIP, as of 2016, offered no code elements, = nor any clues as to how code elements would be formulated, what they = would look like, or where or how the list of code elements would be = maintained, making the proposal unsuitable for discussion in the context = of BCP 47.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=3DMsoNormal><span = lang=3DEN-US><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=3DMsoNormal><span = lang=3DEN-US>> b. =E2=80=9Csgn=E2=80=9D attributed to a language = identifier of an individual language<o:p></o:p></span></p><p = class=3DMsoNormal><span lang=3DEN-US>> (not being a sign language) = could indicate one or the other kind of<o:p></o:p></span></p><p = class=3DMsoNormal><span lang=3DEN-US>> =E2=80=9Csigned language = variety=E2=80=9D =E2=80=93 e.g. (in ISO 639) =E2=80=9Ceng-sgn=E2=80=9D = =3D English in<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=3DMsoNormal><span = lang=3DEN-US>> signed language variety and =E2=80=93 if = differentiation necessary =E2=80=93<o:p></o:p></span></p><p = class=3DMsoNormal><span lang=3DEN-US>> =E2=80=9Ceng-UK-sgn=E2=80=9D = British English in signed language variety<o:p></o:p></span></p><p = class=3DMsoNormal><span lang=3DEN-US>> c. =E2=80=9Csgn=E2=80=9D = attributed to a language identifier of an =E2=80=9Cindividual = sign<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=3DMsoNormal><span lang=3DEN-US>> = language=E2=80=9D could be used to make individual sign languages = identifiable<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=3DMsoNormal><span = lang=3DEN-US>> and searchable =E2=80=93 e.g. (in ISO 639) = =E2=80=9Case-sgn=E2=80=9D =3D American Sign = Language<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=3DMsoNormal><span = lang=3DEN-US>> (ASL) and =E2=80=93 if differentiation is necessary = =E2=80=93 =E2=80=9Case-CA-sgn=E2=80=9D Canadian<o:p></o:p></span></p><p = class=3DMsoNormal><span lang=3DEN-US>> variant of American Sign = Language<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=3DMsoNormal><span = lang=3DEN-US>><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=3DMsoNormal><span = lang=3DEN-US>> If this use of =E2=80=9Csgn=E2=80=9D is not = useful/reasonable for ISO 639 principles,<o:p></o:p></span></p><p = class=3DMsoNormal><span lang=3DEN-US>> please feel free to suggest = alternatives.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=3DMsoNormal><span = lang=3DEN-US><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=3DMsoNormal><span = lang=3DEN-US>My understanding of ISO 639 is that combination of code = elements like this is not within its domain, but left to follow-on = standards such as BCP 47.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p = class=3DMsoNormal><span lang=3DEN-US><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p = class=3DMsoNormal><span lang=3DEN-US>BCP 47 has a very well-defined = syntax with clear, stable rules about which types of subtags can go = where. Inserting =E2=80=9Csgn=E2=80=9D or any three-letter string after = a region subtag, or omitting the region subtag and inverting the order = of primary and extended language subtags (putting =E2=80=9Csgn=E2=80=9D = after =E2=80=9Case=E2=80=9D), is not permitted in BCP = 47.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=3DMsoNormal><span = lang=3DEN-US><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=3DMsoNormal><span = lang=3DEN-US>=E2=80=9Ceng=E2=80=9D is also not permitted for = =E2=80=9CEnglish=E2=80=9D in a BCP 47 tag. The subtag for English is = =E2=80=9Cen=E2=80=9D, derived from the ISO 639-1 code = element.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=3DMsoNormal><span = lang=3DEN-US><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=3DMsoNormal><span = lang=3DEN-US>If this problem is one to be solved within BCP 47 (which I = am increasingly convinced it may not be; see above), then the = syntactical and constraints of BCP 47 must be adhered to. This is the = only way parsers can know what the components of a tag are. This point = is not negotiable.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=3DMsoNormal><span = lang=3DEN-US><o:p> </o:p></span></p><div><p class=3DMsoNormal><span = lang=3DEN-US = style=3D'font-family:Consolas;color:black;background:white'>--<o:p></o:p>= </span></p><p class=3DMsoNormal><span lang=3DEN-US = style=3D'font-family:Consolas;color:black;background:white'>Doug Ewell | = Thornton, CO, US | ewellic.org<o:p></o:p></span></p><p = class=3DMsoNormal><span = lang=3DEN-US><o:p> </o:p></span></p></div></div></body></html> ------=_NextPart_000_0226_01D5A5E5.756E14A0-- --===============3451519193611049881== Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline _______________________________________________ Ietf-languages mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf-languages --===============3451519193611049881==--