Fwd: [Ltru] Re: Macrolanguage and extlang

GerardM gerard.meijssen at GMAIL.COM
Mon Jul 16 08:07:08 UTC 2007

FYI On the LTRU mailing list there is a discussion on how to deal with sign
languages. This is a very welcome thing because at this moment sgn-US is
considered to be American Sign Language while there are several sign
languages associated with the territory of the USA. From my perspective the
association of sign languages with flags is cute but it is broken in many

The way I understand this is that where sgn-US is used it is still
understood to mean American Sign Language, it is however better to use the
more correct ase code.

NB this is something that is now under discussion, it has not been decided
yet, in all likely hood it will be,


---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Doug Ewell <>
Date: Jul 16, 2007 12:20 AM
Subject: [Ltru] Re: Macrolanguage and extlang
To: LTRU Working Group <ltru at ietf.org>

The proposed text makes no special arrangement for sign languages, but
ties the Macrolanguage field to ISO 639-3 assignments.  Shall I assume,
using American Sign Language as an example, that the plan is to
deprecate "sgn-US" and assign it a Preferred-Value of "ase", but not to
give "ase" a Macrolanguage field?

Type: language
Subtag: ase
Description: American Sign Language
Added: 20xx-xx-xx
Type: redundant
Tag: sgn-US
Description: American Sign Language
Added: 2001-03-02
Preferred-Value: ase
Deprecated: 20xx-xx-xx

How should people then interpret the existing language subtag "sgn"?

Doug Ewell  *  Fullerton, California, USA  *  RFC 4645  *  UTN #14

Ltru mailing list
Ltru at ietf.org
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://listserv.linguistlist.org/pipermail/sw-l/attachments/20070716/2f70156b/attachment.html>

More information about the Sw-l mailing list