Subject: Re: [Ietf-languages] Forms to correct errors in registry

From: "Doug Ewell" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 30 Jan 2019 17:17:53 -0700

Shawn Steele wrote:

> I'm unfamiliar with this convention. Does that mean sgn-lsg? I'm not
> sure many systems expect codes in that form.
 
All primary language subtags for sign languages have a corresponding
extlang subtag, so you can use either "xxx" or "sgn-xxx" as the tag for
such content.
 
It's probably true that few systems use a "sgn-xxx" tag for
sign-language content. We built that into RFC 5646 probably for systems
that used the old "sgn-US", "sgn-GB", etc. syntax from RFC 3066.
 
These registrations don't add any such subtags. They are already in the
Registry. What these registrations do is correct the Registry by
restoring the missing Preferred-Value that is required by the RFC. See
the link in the previous post for more information.
 
--
Doug Ewell | Thornton, CO, US | ewellic.org

---

From: Shawn Steele <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 31 Jan 2019 00:26:55 +0000

Thanks Doug, just checking.  I may be able to find some bugs....

-----Original Message-----
From: Doug Ewell <[email-masked]> 
Sent: Wednesday, January 30, 2019 4:18 PM
To: Shawn Steele <[email-masked]>; ietf-languages <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: [Ietf-languages] Forms to correct errors in registry

> sure many systems expect codes in that form.
 
All primary language subtags for sign languages have a corresponding extlang subtag, so you can use either "xxx" or "sgn-xxx" as the tag for such content.
 
It's probably true that few systems use a "sgn-xxx" tag for sign-language content. We built that into RFC 5646 probably for systems that used the old "sgn-US", "sgn-GB", etc. syntax from RFC 3066.
 
These registrations don't add any such subtags. They are already in the Registry. What these registrations do is correct the Registry by restoring the missing Preferred-Value that is required by the RFC. See the link in the previous post for more information.