Re: [Ietf-languages] [EXTERNAL] Re: language identifiers for sign languages (incl. sgn) vs. attribute for indicating the representation of an individual language in "sign language modality"

John Cowan <cowan@ccil.org> Sun, 01 December 2019 20:20 UTC

Return-Path: <cowan@ccil.org>
X-Original-To: ietf-languages@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ietf-languages@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B3A06120106 for <ietf-languages@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 1 Dec 2019 12:20:14 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.233
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.233 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_SOFTFAIL=0.665] autolearn=no autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=ccil-org.20150623.gappssmtp.com
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 1PS0X1sCPRw5 for <ietf-languages@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 1 Dec 2019 12:20:12 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mork.alvestrand.no (mork.alvestrand.no [IPv6:2001:700:1:2::117]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 51A3812004D for <ietf-languages@ietf.org>; Sun, 1 Dec 2019 12:20:12 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mork.alvestrand.no (Postfix) id CAA607C4B2A; Sun, 1 Dec 2019 21:20:10 +0100 (CET)
Delivered-To: ietf-languages@alvestrand.no
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mork.alvestrand.no (Postfix) with ESMTP id B5A807C4B24 for <ietf-languages@alvestrand.no>; Sun, 1 Dec 2019 21:20:10 +0100 (CET)
X-Virus-Scanned: Debian amavisd-new at alvestrand.no
Authentication-Results: mork.alvestrand.no (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=ccil-org.20150623.gappssmtp.com
Received: from mork.alvestrand.no ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (mork.alvestrand.no [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id GQN94qtGLgRl for <ietf-languages@alvestrand.no>; Sun, 1 Dec 2019 21:20:07 +0100 (CET)
X-Greylist: from auto-whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.8.0
X-Greylist: from auto-whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.8.0
X-Comment: SPF skipped for whitelisted relay - client-ip=192.0.46.72; helo=pechora6.dc.icann.org; envelope-from=cowan@ccil.org; receiver=ietf-languages@alvestrand.no
Received: from pechora6.dc.icann.org (pechora6.icann.org [192.0.46.72]) by mork.alvestrand.no (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 5D4737C381C for <ietf-languages@alvestrand.no>; Sun, 1 Dec 2019 21:20:07 +0100 (CET)
Received: from mail-qk1-x72d.google.com (mail-qk1-x72d.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::72d]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by pechora6.dc.icann.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 2CE0D1E027E for <ietf-languages@iana.org>; Sun, 1 Dec 2019 20:20:06 +0000 (UTC)
Received: by mail-qk1-x72d.google.com with SMTP id x1so15774159qkl.12 for <ietf-languages@iana.org>; Sun, 01 Dec 2019 12:20:06 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=ccil-org.20150623.gappssmtp.com; s=20150623; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to; bh=WRunT0c73hfuU8hnFjTj121ULgktHN5L4UfAH/eJEqg=; b=V0FK6RUWBYownipeoJdCjbbSR6VMNeuc4Y6spf6McBVhLyKdokVO3y41whkRZ81CZB tPDww+uwPnbkKkhC7OXWT8lVZdipvY7YkKy0wRYDaIKHhk/PHkXnIzj6Px46WWeT8Of8 9WRPGABxKpXHFEP7JPW/SS4iPdgb4FBsgFAT8tT3VK9ATcSLblr9bW87riurckcQ/R9D tTuUkZ9vBKis+7MB9K5VjgmYX+9EEKNwaMlJ2uRK77m9zjm8RfI6sUtxss4PUkAgl8ca 9HwKhqugn12gJi2uv2f+T0mPR9znFQKkRkUH0Qg6ygkY+KN2btSouX9jxmCWf7+8Rq66 7Jeg==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to; bh=WRunT0c73hfuU8hnFjTj121ULgktHN5L4UfAH/eJEqg=; b=DwExLRjaU28VLjeQk8TDHz1T9CF8krAtoca9zocdqGXgU1HYHzLA6X2N02QP4pGbdd RXv2Rf3Mzs/erIoSFo6MuB3VrdLQUQgkTI+G6MLzhy2OtVzeu8aE3DU+L8QpD+L/dm6X FmmpYkh+filPFk1w90kXwYwbGerT1TQj2hAFRCO6DqorlNKeDH0ps8zvw4UyyE8YjHSM XzV9Vjw/477BYoT7C8VO//xGt20uwjnKTWOhRPQocvs3lZwJDSBLtwnMuTtAVTeR79M5 CydR69qn/owp5o4yik71TPdJYywHMowuPTbBp2pFuodK5W8yBK60o+rndZK2YDgJTnqc s2AA==
X-Gm-Message-State: APjAAAW0sWhbRQUubstOmE+oPHsS7LmbrQhf3DixUll374gcELN3JK9T BOxP7tWA9LxNrLGKB2e9IRgQFX4ae+cntf4J+ARCVIh8rZ4=
X-Google-Smtp-Source: APXvYqy8dVLLhPVNwqbfxQAg0LSq9VFxfEl/ScZkT/pj0cqnES0gsPuvKMOeMtzbShVdYzHL19y/gO23QVks5H/vS1E=
X-Received: by 2002:a05:620a:12c4:: with SMTP id e4mr14274166qkl.359.1575231586403; Sun, 01 Dec 2019 12:19:46 -0800 (PST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <20191122140445.665a7a7059d7ee80bb4d670165c8327d.e5d7554235.wbe@email03.godaddy.com> <MW2PR2101MB10651AA60FBA508E53BE023BD5480@MW2PR2101MB1065.namprd21.prod.outlook.com> <YTXPR0101MB0861EBEA60D89A2846BCC6B685480@YTXPR0101MB0861.CANPRD01.PROD.OUTLOOK.COM> <003001d5a223$241a34f0$6c4e9ed0$@chello.at> <000001d5a31b$ed1cf4c0$c756de40$@ewellic.org> <022501d5a5fe$9ab420b0$d01c6210$@xs4all.nl> <CAD2gp_S6GtKPnnVmFBOeyPPuxAeWcXNYMdXVZF6V_tGJFfv=NA@mail.gmail.com> <4D059B89F8F9A120.0c6b90b5-c42c-456f-91e4-73dbc9330e54@mail.outlook.com> <CAD2gp_T6CxDSVV6ziGQqFuCxrSdD0H2Pb3mdZmvzoM9S-dYaVA@mail.gmail.com> <00e701d5a866$60986bb0$21c94310$@xs4all.nl>
In-Reply-To: <00e701d5a866$60986bb0$21c94310$@xs4all.nl>
From: John Cowan <cowan@ccil.org>
Date: Sun, 1 Dec 2019 15:19:36 -0500
Message-ID: <CAD2gp_TkOQqv7WWJevveTzeCCYf4QoF7G8V9PwuKpgX8ez2Azg@mail.gmail.com>
To: ietf-languages <ietf-languages@iana.org>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="0000000000002598c40598aa2fb9"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf-languages/1a2UeOBndSI--6WvjyhhEux1n3I>
Subject: Re: [Ietf-languages] [EXTERNAL] Re: language identifiers for sign languages (incl. sgn) vs. attribute for indicating the representation of an individual language in "sign language modality"
X-BeenThere: ietf-languages@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: <ietf-languages.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/ietf-languages>, <mailto:ietf-languages-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/ietf-languages/>
List-Post: <mailto:ietf-languages@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ietf-languages-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf-languages>, <mailto:ietf-languages-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 01 Dec 2019 20:20:15 -0000

On Sun, Dec 1, 2019 at 11:42 AM Sebastian Drude (personal) <drude@xs4all.nl>
wrote:

As to your specific questions, the Glottolog evaluation is:
>

My questions were rhetorical, but thanks for the links.  I simply picked a
few well-known areas of disagreement.


> I am not sure I understand what you refer to in this context by
> “identification”,
>

I mean that our variant subtags, like ISO 639, 15924, and 3166 code
elements, serve only to identify particular language varieties (or in a few
cases groups of varieties); they contain no classificatory information.
All you can determine from the 639-3 code element "djk" is that it
identifies the living individual language named "Eastern Maroon Creole"; by
the same token, all you can determine from the subtag "aluki" is that it
refers to the Aluki dialect of this language.

and I was not aware that this WG ‘is’ a registration mechanism (that seems
> to be a complicated statement already for ontological reasons 😉);
>

Technically we are not an IETF WG because our activities are not limited in
time; we are most closely analogous to an ISO Registration Authority, but
without corporate identity. The Language Subtag Reviewer is an IETF
appointee, however.


> where one can read about that; what are the procedures and criteria?
>

In RFC 5646 (the first part of BCP 47) particularly sections 2.2.5
(definition of variant subtags), 3.1.8 (how the connection between
particular variants and particular choices of ISO code elements is
established), and 3.5 (the registration procedure).  In brief, someone who
wishes to register a variant fills out a form, sends it to this mailing
list where it is discussed for two weeks or when discussion dies down
(whichever comes last), the Language Subtag Reviewer decides to accept or
reject the registration (technically subject to appeal to the IETF, but
this has never happened), and if accepted it is sent to IANA (the formal
registration authority for the IETF) for publication.

Which are the varieties already established/identified/registered?
>

In the file <
https://www.iana.org/assignments/language-subtag-registry/language-subtag-registry>gt;,
the sections containing "Type: variant".  Further details that were used to
validate the registration appear in the directory <
https://www.iana.org/assignments/lang-subtags-templates/lang-subtags-templates.xhtml
>.



John Cowan          http://vrici.lojban.org/~cowan        cowan@ccil.org
Assent may be registered by a signature, a handshake, or a click of a
computer
mouse transmitted across the invisible ether of the Internet. Formality
is not a requisite; any sign, symbol or action, or even willful inaction,
as long as it is unequivocally referable to the promise, may create a
contract.
       --Specht v. Netscape