For my 2 cents worth, if you are only using the codes internally, why
not just use the codes that the SIL ethnologue is already using? If
you do that, you might even be able to set something up in the future
that links with the Ethnologue descriptions of the languages, users,
etc. It also prevents from having to re-invent the wheel. I'm sure
it would be very easy to develop a "dictionary" of sorts that stored
the local acronym, and international acronyms that would be used
by the average person. Just a thought.
Stuart Thiessen
On 2 Aug 99, at 10:56, Valerie Sutton wrote:
> > But, LIBRAS sounds appealing.
> > To stretch into 3 letters, I would rather be LSB than LBR.
> >
> >Eduardo Gheller Mörschbächer
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>
> August 2, 1999
>
> Hello Eduardo and Everyone on the SW List!
>
> Thank you for your good suggestions. I know, Eduardo, that you are a
> programmer, so this is a perfect time for me to explain why I need these
> acronyms in the first place....
>
> The acronyms will be used internally in the programming source code of
> SignWriter 5.0, to refer to and tag different signed languages. But the
> user will never see acronyms.
>
> The user will either see icons, or the names of their signed language
> written in SignWriting, or the full name of the signed language written in
> words. I am not choosing to use the acronyms in the user interface for
> SignWriter 5.0.
>
> So, the shorter versions of the acronyms are helpful for source code,
> although longer names might be ok...I am not sure.
>
> You probably wonder why all this matters? :-)
>
> The reason is this... Someday, when SignWriter 5.0's source code is
> stable, and the program is released to the general public, I plan to share
> the source code with other programmers, and when that day comes, it is
> important, I feel, that the programmers refer to the different countries
> with a standardized list of acronyms. This will give signed languages
> added respect with the ISO, the International Standards Organization,
> which sets the standards for the use of acronyms in programming around the
> world.
>
> When we started designing our amazing international user's interface for
> SignWriter 5.0, our programmer went up on the web and found the ISO's
> listings for the acronyms for spoken languages, and the acronyms for
> countries too:
>
> Language Acronyms Standards ISO 639:1988:
> https://www.ics.uci.edu/pub/ietf/https/related/iso639.txt
>
> Country Acronyms Standards ISO 3166:
> ftp://ftp.ripe.net/iso3166-countrycodes
> https://www.bcpl.net/~jspath/isocodes.html
>
>
> So we have been referring to those listings ever since, and using those
> acronymns in our source code.
>
> But the ISO did not include acronyms for signed languages. So my
> programmer had no choice but to ask me what acronyms we should use, when
> referring to different signed languages inside the source code.
>
> I thought about it, and decided that SignWriter 5.0 should use the best
> acronyms possible, even though it is hidden inside the program, because in
> the long run, this can help signed languages receive the respect they
> deserve in the world of programming.
>
> So, Eduardo, I do realize that the term LIBRAS is used in Brazil for
> Brazilian Sign Language, and certainly it will continue to be used. But in
> the source code, a three letter acronym might be better - what do you
> think?
>
> Valerie :-)
>
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>
> Valerie Sutton
>
>
> SignWriting Web Site
> https://www.SignWriting.org
>
> Post messages to the SignWriting List
>
>
> SignWriting List Archives
> https://www.egroups.com/group/sw-l
>
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>
> The DAC
> Deaf Action Committee for SignWriting
> Center For Sutton Movement Writing
> an educational nonprofit organization
> PO. Box 517, La Jolla, CA, 92038-0517, USA
>
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>
>
|
SignWriting List Forum