Subject: [Ltru] "extlangish" (was: Re: draft updated)

From: "Doug Ewell" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 19 Jun 2008 22:20:21 -0600

Kent Karlsson <kent dot karlsson14 at comhem dot se> wrote:

> * for 'ar' we are about to add 30 extlangs, *none* of which are 
> "extlangish" in the current LSR.
>
> * for 'zh' we are about to add 13 extlangs, *only four* of which are 
> "extlangish" in the current LSR (cmn, gan, wuu, yue).
>
> * for 'sgn' we are about to add 132 extlangs, *none* of which are 
> "extlangish" in the current LSR.

You are introducing a new term, "extlangish," for grandfathered tags 
registered in the RFC 1766/3066 era which happen to resemble 
language-extlang combinations.

In fact, except for the three "zh-cmn" tags, all of the "zh-something" 
tags were registered in 1999 or 2001, and there is no interesting 
difference between the "somethings" that are three letters long and the 
ones that are longer.

The grandfathered tags may have provided some impetus for the creation 
of extlangs in "zh", but other than that, I don't believe any decision 
on extlangs has had much to do with whether the Registry already had 
"extlangish" grandfathered tags, nor should it.

> Was there "rough consensus" to add extlangs for any other primary 
> languages tags (none of which would be "extlangish" in the current 
> LSR)?

Once the decision was made to compromise and add extlangs for a limited 
set of primary languages, there was a diversity of opinion as to which 
primary languages to choose.  Most people (once they got on board with 
the compromise) seemed OK with "zh" and "sgn".  Some liked adding "ar" 
to the list, others did not.  Currently the list we have covers all six 
languages originally listed as having a dominant encompassed language, 
plus "sgn".  Drafts-4646bis have been written with this list.  It may 
not be final, but I haven't seen resounding opposition to it.

One thing for which there was NEVER any consensus was to pick individual 
encompassed languages to be extlangs based on whether there was a 
corresponding "extlangish" grandfathered tag.  That would make "cmn" an 
extlang but not "cdo".  That way lies complete madness.

--
Doug Ewell  *  Arvada, Colorado, USA  *  RFC 4645  *  UTN #14
http://www.ewellic.org
http://www1.ietf.org/html.charters/ltru-charter.html
http://www.alvestrand.no/mailman/listinfo/ietf-languages  ˆ

_______________________________________________
Ltru mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ltru

---

From: "Doug Ewell" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 19 Jun 2008 22:45:08 -0600

Kent Karlsson <kent dot karlsson14 at comhem dot se> wrote:

> B.t.w., should not the preferred value for the grandfathered
> sign language tags maintain the region, like:
>
> g.f. tag cur. p.v. p.v. keeping region
> sgn-BE-FR sfb sbf-BE (or sgn-sbf-BE)

(typo; should be 'sfb' throughout)

> sgn-BE-NL vgt vgt-BE (or sgn-vgt-BE)
> sgn-CH-DE sgg sgg-CH (or sgn-sgg-CH)
>
> etc. for the other grandfathered sgn-NN tags. (Not that I think
> it matters very much, but still.)

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

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.

If you really want to tag "ASL as used in the United States," as opposed 
to "ASL as used somewhere else," you will one day have the ability to do 
so, with "(sgn-)ase-US".  But this is not a suitable Preferred-Value for 
"sgn-US".

---

From: "Kent Karlsson" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 20 Jun 2008 11:02:34 +0200

> extlang but not "cdo".  That way lies complete madness.

Not an argument for picking individual extlang subtags. But as I read
the arguments, it has been a motivation for picking certain primary
laguage subtags to get extlang subtags: the backwards compatibility
argument for extlang support. And that really only applies to 'zh',
very very weakly to 'sgn' (I'd say not at all, but...), and not at
all to 'ar' or any other primary language subtags.

	/kent k

---

From: "Kent Karlsson" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 20 Jun 2008 11:03:08 +0200

> (sgn-)sgg-CH   Swiss-German Sign Language as used in Germany

etc. for grandfathered sgn-NN tags.

> 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

---

From: Peter Constable <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 21 Jun 2008 00:11:07 -0700

> From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]] On Behalf Of
> Kent Karlsson

> > mechanism and tags were completely atomic.

I never bought into that principle, and always objected to those registrations accordingly.

Even so, I agree that is the principle assumed by those tags: the bits that look like region IDs are not intended to be interpreted in the same way generative region IDs would be interpreted.

Peter

---

From: Martin Duerst <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 24 Jun 2008 15:35:44 +0900

>sgn-* grandfathered tags.)

It's indeed "sign language as used in the US", but in a wider sense,
not in a narrower sense. Even for en-US, there is a lot of it that
wasn't created in the US itself.

Regards,    Martin.

#-#-#  Martin J. Du"rst, Assoc. Professor, Aoyama Gakuin University
#-#-#  http://www.sw.it.aoyama.ac.jp       mailto:[email-masked]

---

From: Peter Constable <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 25 Jun 2008 09:31:32 -0700

> Martin Duerst

> wasn't created in the US itself.

Let's be clear: "sgn-US" was intended to mean precisely "American Sign Language" -- as used *anywhere*. In particular, note that ASL is widely spoken in countries other than the USA. This was discussed at length when the tag was registered many years back, and was a reason I was very much opposed to the use of region subtags to indicate semantics other than the usual "as used in..." semantics indicated by region subtags.

Peter

---

From: "Randy Presuhn" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 25 Jun 2008 10:08:03 -0700

Hi -

As a technical contributor...

> From: "Peter Constable" <[email-masked]>
> To: "'LTRU Working Group'" <[email-masked]>
> Sent: Wednesday, June 25, 2008 9:31 AM
> Subject: Re: [Ltru] sgn-tags with regions (was: Re: draft updated)
...
> Let's be clear: "sgn-US" was intended to mean precisely
> "American Sign Language" -- as used *anywhere*. In particular,
> note that ASL is widely spoken in countries other than the USA.
...

I suppose this means that if there are regional variations in
American Sign Language as it is used around the world, we'd
have to rely on additional subtags (and not the region subtags)
to indicate them.  Does this require additional action now, or
can it be handled simply by subtag registrations as needed?

Randy

---

From: John Cowan <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 25 Jun 2008 13:27:20 -0400

> can it be handled simply by subtag registrations as needed?

When 4646bis passes, we will have [sgn-]ase as a replacement,
and that can be properly subtagged ase-US, ase-CN, ase-GT, etc.

-- 
John Cowan <[email-masked]>             http://www.ccil.org/~cowan
Today an interactive brochure website, tomorrow a global content
management system that leverages collective synergy to drive "outside of
the box" thinking and formulate key objectives into a win-win game plan
with a quality-driven approach that focuses on empowering key players
to drive-up their core competencies and increase expectations with an
all-around initiative to drive up the bottom-line. --Alex Papadimoulis
_______________________________________________
Ltru mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ltru

---

From: "Phillips, Addison" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 25 Jun 2008 11:04:12 -0700

The subtag 'ase' will replace "sgn-US" as the (sub)tag meaning "American Sign Language". You can then use region subtags with it as needed. E.g. ase-US or sgn-ase-US (based on the current draft). Among other things, it means that we don't need to do anything except deprecate the grandfathered tag "sgn-US" (etc.)

Addison

Addison Phillips
Globalization Architect -- Lab126

Internationalization is not a feature.
It is an architecture.

> -----Original Message-----
> From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]] On
> Behalf Of Randy Presuhn
> Sent: Wednesday, June 25, 2008 10:08 AM
> To: 'LTRU Working Group'