Re: [Ltru] Proposed -t0- subtag

"Debbie Garside" <> Mon, 25 July 2011 18:18 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 352F121F8C26 for <>; Mon, 25 Jul 2011 11:18:43 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.599
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599]
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id HsMAPbdQheu6 for <>; Mon, 25 Jul 2011 11:18:42 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2BF8B21F8C19 for <>; Mon, 25 Jul 2011 11:18:41 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ICTPC ([]) by with MailEnable ESMTP; Mon, 25 Jul 2011 19:18:51 +0100
From: "Debbie Garside" <>
To: "'Doug Ewell'" <>, <>
References: <>
In-Reply-To: <>
Date: Mon, 25 Jul 2011 19:18:04 +0100
Message-ID: <0bf401cc4af7$329cdbe0$97d693a0$>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
X-Mailer: Microsoft Office Outlook 12.0
Thread-Index: AcxK8nMRnXODVQs7RsydhoikC++MggABH9jA
Content-Language: en-gb
Subject: Re: [Ltru] Proposed -t0- subtag
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: Language Tag Registry Update working group discussion list <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 25 Jul 2011 18:18:43 -0000

Spoken and written are covered in ISO 639-6.  At the recent TC37 meeting in Seoul a new WG for linguistic register was created and a working draft is due by January 2012.

Best wishes


-----Original Message-----
From: [] On Behalf Of Doug Ewell
Sent: 25 July 2011 18:43
Subject: Re: [Ltru] Proposed -t0- subtag

"Broome, Karen" <Karen dot Broome at am dot sony dot com> wrote:

> Sorry, I was thinking the original ISO registration had gone through
> as 'No Linguistic content' but now I'm remembering that this was
> somewhat of a partner tag for 'zxx' which does mean that. I wasn't
> referencing the RFC text per se, which gives the user an option — and
> I'm OK with the option. Still, I generally find this muddy. I don't
> want to look to a script tag to define the language mode because there
> are commonly used language modes that are not written forms. The
> disconnect with the 'zxx' tag this tags mirrors may be another reason
> to avoid use to indicate the language mode.

I think what you are finding "muddy" is not the subtag 'Zxxx', which
does have a fairly clear meaning in BCP 47, but rather the use of a
script (writing system) subtag to tag content that isn't written.  I can
see how this is unintuitive.  I think the answer is that BCP 47 tags
aren't really designed to tag modes out of the box, and that, in turn,
is exactly what extensions are for.

If you or anyone else did want to create an extension RFC for modes
('m', perhaps), you'd probably want to start the discussion by
identifying the initial values (spoken, written, signed, anything else?)
and setting constraints.  As examples of the latter, you'd want to
establish whether male vs. female, shouting vs. whispering, friendly vs.
angry, handwritten vs. printed, etc. are in scope.

Doug Ewell | Thornton, Colorado, USA | RFC 5645, 4645, UTN #14 | | @DougEwell ­

Ltru mailing list