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"

"Fourney, David" <david.fourney@usask.ca> Sat, 23 November 2019 05:20 UTC

Return-Path: <david.fourney@usask.ca>
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 5010312006E for <ietf-languages@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 22 Nov 2019 21:20:23 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.334
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.334 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_SOFTFAIL=0.665] autolearn=no autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=usask.ca
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 axeeC5ExnpL4 for <ietf-languages@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 22 Nov 2019 21:20:21 -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 A4A8E12003F for <ietf-languages@ietf.org>; Fri, 22 Nov 2019 21:20:20 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mork.alvestrand.no (Postfix) id B62B17C38E4; Sat, 23 Nov 2019 06:20:18 +0100 (CET)
Delivered-To: ietf-languages@alvestrand.no
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mork.alvestrand.no (Postfix) with ESMTP id 810EB7C3988 for <ietf-languages@alvestrand.no>; Sat, 23 Nov 2019 06:20:18 +0100 (CET)
X-Virus-Scanned: Debian amavisd-new at alvestrand.no
Authentication-Results: mork.alvestrand.no (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=usask.ca
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 9GNKToi4pxjn for <ietf-languages@alvestrand.no>; Sat, 23 Nov 2019 06:20:12 +0100 (CET)
X-Greylist: delayed 00:07:51 by SQLgrey-1.8.0
X-Greylist: from auto-whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.8.0
X-Comment: SPF skipped for whitelisted relay - client-ip=2620:0:2830:201::1:72; helo=pechora6.dc.icann.org; envelope-from=david.fourney@usask.ca; receiver=ietf-languages@alvestrand.no
Received: from pechora6.dc.icann.org (pechora6.icann.org [IPv6:2620:0:2830:201::1:72]) by mork.alvestrand.no (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 133AE7C38E4 for <ietf-languages@alvestrand.no>; Sat, 23 Nov 2019 06:20:11 +0100 (CET)
Received: from CAN01-QB1-obe.outbound.protection.outlook.com (mail-eopbgr660130.outbound.protection.outlook.com [40.107.66.130]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by pechora6.dc.icann.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id E0B7F1E011F for <ietf-languages@iana.org>; Sat, 23 Nov 2019 05:12:18 +0000 (UTC)
ARC-Seal: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; s=arcselector9901; d=microsoft.com; cv=none; b=EczhawFZjmswenITxhUUi+QFBFXaQQOYfux2/mBOBVKP9XMOGiZCiENym4XeMt09BtZB/VIIsUQLqT5gpT2PLyTvzQGYWSCy6Z9K0ASnII9fprXnCzzRTaxs3iAndnJ234268S/EU9Ta5XGNZPZ5VWCB8on5MkYcDUihj3mxFzyRVs2GJXb63VDVM2B7/RULRIfK5azvk72+AVs4kRSuvKnRBrszDm/GHuD/iwPZSOs3hAyVrGBhFKjUHZg6HGz5rU3q9ZDQW0phdBijsvwhYDUoLOvNrw7HhC2tNAINcS5+tH+sQTl1rDxN7UfGevIiKCHkZlRstsiIFufzhmrQlQ==
ARC-Message-Signature: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=microsoft.com; s=arcselector9901; h=From:Date:Subject:Message-ID:Content-Type:MIME-Version:X-MS-Exchange-SenderADCheck; bh=7Gxn9fFKVZ/Xb9tLeaUBM7/hx+2VGjJRI4PEj/7lIP4=; b=Sn4JIuzi6ofGGOZHcD9QbnvSk2sVwT3LgFBqFl0Nw3vIL0dNNhaJo5iRj7LoU5MhPmuY+9K9ubUxx414Zlo0dvh7dE5Tq7cDqJYZ+DNyblguG5RF0BAey41KSePhvi2LmjF9lni7mBkbWybNZr9psn13eGsBqimSt/8OZYkGAcp8RJ6OPiMTIIzbLbZe967w0PttGo007kn8jm4Ge1NNuFtQ9ba9Ew0sTZSOILfkBp3ACwEWhwpYEvXcR+yjbpn3It17FzqSIhUnNO6EqG2Iya+eERQqNAtD7xvmLMlF/Pfd8px6j1CJNUWmRHbA4cOx8SLik3REM8bH8fUSaxm7pA==
ARC-Authentication-Results: i=1; mx.microsoft.com 1; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=usask.ca; dmarc=pass action=none header.from=usask.ca; dkim=pass header.d=usask.ca; arc=none
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=usask.ca; s=selector2; h=From:Date:Subject:Message-ID:Content-Type:MIME-Version:X-MS-Exchange-SenderADCheck; bh=7Gxn9fFKVZ/Xb9tLeaUBM7/hx+2VGjJRI4PEj/7lIP4=; b=MqQcu0X+8j2H1UhEFKq3vhssL1S07ngem8/sLuoUgj8LpSH0iYNKi0pDm066VqV19k3PO8r4IySCdy0nM2W8kFL7wbhEwRkHJAs94oATP0UoN6ImYnDxuMrtIG4SDARCFK2EcDuflr52eapRZD1y9YMm6VED5hROiKPwSjkta4I=
Received: from YTXPR0101MB0861.CANPRD01.PROD.OUTLOOK.COM (52.132.34.160) by YTXPR0101MB2063.CANPRD01.PROD.OUTLOOK.COM (52.132.33.139) with Microsoft SMTP Server (version=TLS1_2, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_256_GCM_SHA384) id 15.20.2474.16; Sat, 23 Nov 2019 05:11:56 +0000
Received: from YTXPR0101MB0861.CANPRD01.PROD.OUTLOOK.COM ([fe80::6dad:6d84:2ee1:2d90]) by YTXPR0101MB0861.CANPRD01.PROD.OUTLOOK.COM ([fe80::6dad:6d84:2ee1:2d90%3]) with mapi id 15.20.2474.021; Sat, 23 Nov 2019 05:11:56 +0000
From: "Fourney, David" <david.fourney@usask.ca>
To: Peter Constable <petercon@microsoft.com>, Doug Ewell <doug@ewellic.org>, Christian Galinski <christian.galinski@chello.at>
CC: ietf-languages <ietf-languages@iana.org>, 'Sebastian Drude' <Sebastian.Drude@outlook.com>, "Melinda_Lyons@sil.org" <Melinda_Lyons@sil.org>
Thread-Topic: [EXTERNAL] Re: [Ietf-languages] language identifiers for sign languages (incl. sgn) vs. attribute for indicating the representation of an individual language in "sign language modality"
Thread-Index: AQHVoXiMQCkAGnpzQUmI6qR0F4OOaKeX5ZmAgABOUg4=
Date: Sat, 23 Nov 2019 05:11:56 +0000
Message-ID: <YTXPR0101MB0861EBEA60D89A2846BCC6B685480@YTXPR0101MB0861.CANPRD01.PROD.OUTLOOK.COM>
References: <20191122140445.665a7a7059d7ee80bb4d670165c8327d.e5d7554235.wbe@email03.godaddy.com>, <MW2PR2101MB10651AA60FBA508E53BE023BD5480@MW2PR2101MB1065.namprd21.prod.outlook.com>
In-Reply-To: <MW2PR2101MB10651AA60FBA508E53BE023BD5480@MW2PR2101MB1065.namprd21.prod.outlook.com>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
msip_labels: MSIP_Label_f42aa342-8706-4288-bd11-ebb85995028c_ActionId=de9b1a33-8ff7-4cdf-b6a9-0000fcbfaa8d; MSIP_Label_f42aa342-8706-4288-bd11-ebb85995028c_ContentBits=0; MSIP_Label_f42aa342-8706-4288-bd11-ebb85995028c_Enabled=true; MSIP_Label_f42aa342-8706-4288-bd11-ebb85995028c_Method=Standard; MSIP_Label_f42aa342-8706-4288-bd11-ebb85995028c_Name=Internal; MSIP_Label_f42aa342-8706-4288-bd11-ebb85995028c_SetDate=2019-11-22T23:44:07Z; MSIP_Label_f42aa342-8706-4288-bd11-ebb85995028c_SiteId=72f988bf-86f1-41af-91ab-2d7cd011db47;
authentication-results: spf=none (sender IP is ) smtp.mailfrom=david.fourney@usask.ca;
x-originating-ip: [2607:fea8:5620:6b:3413:909:f798:36c1]
x-ms-publictraffictype: Email
x-ms-office365-filtering-correlation-id: f900f16d-67ff-4a90-1e66-08d76fd3a947
x-ms-traffictypediagnostic: YTXPR0101MB2063:
x-ms-exchange-purlcount: 4
x-microsoft-antispam-prvs: <YTXPR0101MB206331E165F3A6E9257969F085480@YTXPR0101MB2063.CANPRD01.PROD.OUTLOOK.COM>
x-uofs-origin: Internal
x-ms-oob-tlc-oobclassifiers: OLM:10000;
x-forefront-prvs: 0230B09AC4
x-forefront-antispam-report: SFV:NSPM; SFS:(10019020)(366004)(346002)(376002)(396003)(39860400002)(136003)(189003)(199004)(13464003)(53754006)(25786009)(1511001)(54906003)(186003)(110136005)(5660300002)(2906002)(6116002)(53546011)(4326008)(6246003)(9686003)(7696005)(55016002)(52536014)(256004)(76176011)(6306002)(6436002)(316002)(14454004)(966005)(46003)(74316002)(229853002)(86362001)(99286004)(14444005)(6506007)(76116006)(66946007)(66476007)(71200400001)(66556008)(71190400001)(64756008)(66446008)(305945005)(8676002)(81166006)(81156014)(446003)(8936002)(11346002)(478600001)(33656002)(7736002)(786003)(102836004)(21314003); DIR:OUT; SFP:1102; SCL:1; SRVR:YTXPR0101MB2063; H:YTXPR0101MB0861.CANPRD01.PROD.OUTLOOK.COM; FPR:; SPF:None; LANG:en; PTR:InfoNoRecords; MX:1; A:1;
received-spf: None (protection.outlook.com: usask.ca does not designate permitted sender hosts)
x-ms-exchange-senderadcheck: 1
x-microsoft-antispam: BCL:0;
x-microsoft-antispam-message-info: SXnoCVODYs1dd930qsaFrk6BGdGYQC9+JEDJvdwB+Qz1VZMM85DSix3uoGxL3wJNXYcDtEzanxXHpYdgUl+NcYEnzcPuf6MRRpbdvgNpqmcz6x3arwyPn4Bbv9JJ42gVyktblPQqIIHU9aD2GGu1UIHuV1bUjyhn0Wq2himF7EYAO0fO4bvuvLPS1G3ga2HFLzGHgRszPJ4EttEXIxHCQtcFHuNodIx+3+GInxLcJOuTVmPxitVParYk+TiND7i+sfKpa6WTlfNDteIcSxVG19+InCZEiM3qp7v5c5gT48dqXQ5LCQoh43sYthDdMJHLPFg/AnYpPrsr1qcm6wm5HK3NNTdtQWfxt50zV875Zb5NV+hhRg5KnuIOrzm8PGn2TRxelOHZG7G9CcurAAdR9Wee1ELzFhvv1ysMnqFK/73n4ar0O4SXbaU28caeKfvkDy1P5Jff8Pb+j38Kz1kM73enNVVfSsJhTtn1ycrEPBY=
x-ms-exchange-transport-forked: True
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="Windows-1252"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-OriginatorOrg: usask.ca
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-Network-Message-Id: f900f16d-67ff-4a90-1e66-08d76fd3a947
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-originalarrivaltime: 23 Nov 2019 05:11:56.3348 (UTC)
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-fromentityheader: Hosted
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-id: 24ab6cd0-487e-4722-9bc3-da9c4232776c
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-mailboxtype: HOSTED
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-userprincipalname: 0ppVrsqsFtvahRSAxWu220xbVBMgDcPb1oXgGEiRLFvCira+500++TT343F1sm+t
X-Greylist: Sender passed SPF test, not delayed by milter-greylist-4.6.2 (pechora6.dc.icann.org [192.0.46.72]); Sat, 23 Nov 2019 05:12:19 +0000 (UTC)
X-MS-Exchange-Transport-CrossTenantHeadersStamped: YTXPR0101MB2063
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf-languages/Sf0pTmE3j5skyeJ4LrDlKmJZmIY>
X-Mailman-Approved-At: Sat, 23 Nov 2019 23:45:48 -0800
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, 24 Nov 2019 04:37:55 -0000

Hi all,

I agree that the ‘t’ extension is not appropriate for the purpose we are trying to capture.

While I'm reluctant to propose an expansion to an already complex system, I'm wondering if there is openness to something like a "modality" tag that could be used to describe the expressed form of any language.

My thinking is that ISO 639-4 specifically refers to three different modalities (written, spoken, signed). If we want to describe a language according to its modality then why restrict that to just sign?

David.


________________________________________
From: Peter Constable <petercon@microsoft.com>;
Sent: Friday, November 22, 2019 6:23 PM
To: Doug Ewell; Christian Galinski; Fourney, David
Cc: ietf-languages; 'Sebastian Drude'; Melinda_Lyons@sil.org
Subject: RE: [EXTERNAL] Re: [Ietf-languages] language identifiers for sign languages (incl. sgn) vs. attribute for indicating the representation of an individual language in "sign language modality"

The scope of the ‘t’ extension is linguistic content that has undergone some type of transform in its expression, and signed modality for a spoken language could be considered a transform. But the ‘t’ extension as currently defined doesn’t support this. What is supported is primarily dealing with text transformations. Also, the way the ‘t’ extension works is that the additional information declares what content was transformed _from_, not what it is transformed _into_. For signed modality of spoken languages, what’s needed is a way to indicate signed modality as the final expression, not the source.

So, I don’t think the ‘t’ extension is appropriate.

I think a variant subtag “signed” or “signmod” would be better. The main problem that would arise is that this is very generic (it could be usefully applied to any oral language), which there has been resistance to in the past. A smaller issue is that, while variant tags for specific signed-modality variants could be registered, it might make sense to use a subtag sequence along the lines -signed-modvarnt, but it’s currently not possible to specify a prefix as anything other than a valid language tag. (E.g., *-signed can’t be a prefix specification.) That wouldn’t be a problem as long as the signed-modality variant is specific to a particular language, as would be the case for (e.g.) Signed Exact English.



Peter

From: Ietf-languages <ietf-languages-bounces@ietf.org>; On Behalf Of Doug Ewell
Sent: Friday, November 22, 2019 1:05 PM
To: Christian Galinski <christian.galinski@chello.at>;; 'Fourney, David' <david.fourney@usask.ca>;
Cc: ietf-languages <ietf-languages@iana.org>;; 'Sebastian Drude' <Sebastian.Drude@outlook.com>;; Melinda_Lyons@sil.org
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Re: [Ietf-languages] language identifiers for sign languages (incl. sgn) vs. attribute for indicating the representation of an individual language in "sign language modality"

Hi Christian,

> Many true sign languages (se definitions below), such as “ase”
> (American Sign Language [ASL], which /fictively/ might even have a
> Newfoundland and Labrador variety – to be coded ase-CA-NL in line
> with BCP47 rules) have already a language identifier.

This example is actually not valid BCP 47 syntax. The use of ISO 3166-1 country codes as region subtags doesn't extend to appending ISO 3166-2 subdivision codes directly. You would need to use "ase-u-sd-canl" or "ase-CA-u-sd-canl". See UTS #35, Section 3.6.5.

> The question to Doug is, how the BCP and Unicode rules deal with the
> above-mentioned difference between (true) “individual sign languages”
> and the “signed language modality” (as a sort of “transform” of any
> individual language)?

I don't believe there are or should be any "Unicode rules" (which I assume refers to CLDR and the 't' or 'u' extension) that deal with this.

One approach would be to request a variant subtag, such as 'signed', to represent the signed modality of a spoken language, such as (but not limited to) Signing Exact English. See RFC 5646, Section 2.2.5 for details on variant subtags and Section 3.6 for details on requesting a registration.

However, some may argue that modality is beyond the scope of BCP 47 variants and would suggest a CLDR extension to deal with this within the 't' extension framework. In that case, your best bet would be to contact cldr-contact@unicode.org<mailto:cldr-contact@unicode.org> .

--
Doug Ewell | Thornton, CO, US | ewellic.org<https://nam06.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fewellic.org&data=02%7C01%7Cpetercon%40microsoft.com%7C19558599ac7d421157fc08d76f8fc274%7C72f988bf86f141af91ab2d7cd011db47%7C1%7C0%7C637100535555481188&sdata=5sWZ089qfuVRPWbmetKrFDHskz%2BETA2vY0ioACdSzos%3D&reserved=0>


-------- Original Message --------
Subject: language identifiers for sign languages (incl. sgn) vs.
attribute for indicating the representation of an individual language in
"sign language modality"
From: "Christian Galinski" <christian.galinski@chello.at<mailto:christian.galinski@chello.at>>
Date: Fri, November 22, 2019 11:48 am
To: "'Fourney, David'" <david.fourney@usask.ca<mailto:david.fourney@usask.ca>>
Cc: <Melinda_Lyons@sil.org<mailto:Melinda_Lyons@sil.org>>, "'Sebastian Drude'"
<Sebastian.Drude@outlook.com<mailto:Sebastian.Drude@outlook.com>>, <doug@ewellic.org<mailto:doug@ewellic.org>>


Dear David,

First I have to apologize for my long silence – I was absorbed with work on several standards.

We are now at a crucial moment where things need to be clarified in ISO 639-4 “language coding” (and ISO/TR 21636 “Language varieties”) – including your issue of how to identify “individual sign languages” (i.e. true individual sign languages, which are not just a modality of spoken language) and the “signed language modality” which is a signed representation of a spoken language).


  1.  concerning the difference between “individual sign languages” and “signed language modality”, the use of the language identifier “sgn” (in library use) is confined to an unidentifiable individual sign language – it is NOT referring to a “signed language modality”. According to the fundamental rules of language coding, we cannot change the scope of “sgn”, nor ignore the difference between sign language and the signed language modality.
Therefore, for the sign language modality we need an “attribute” to be added to the language identifier of an individual language, e.g. if the sign language modality of the type of “Signing Exact English” is used.
  2.  However, I could not find an identifier for signed language modality, nor a mechanism for inserting an identifier for this in:
https://tools.ietf.org/html/bcp47<https://nam06.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Ftools.ietf.org%2Fhtml%2Fbcp47&data=02%7C01%7Cpetercon%40microsoft.com%7C19558599ac7d421157fc08d76f8fc274%7C72f988bf86f141af91ab2d7cd011db47%7C1%7C0%7C637100535555486190&sdata=PWlDE0pdRCgLBG4wsnprwit5%2B6EeB%2Fux%2FiApkJkmweg%3D&reserved=0>
https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc6497#ref-UTS35<https://nam06.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Ftools.ietf.org%2Fhtml%2Frfc6497%23ref-UTS35&data=02%7C01%7Cpetercon%40microsoft.com%7C19558599ac7d421157fc08d76f8fc274%7C72f988bf86f141af91ab2d7cd011db47%7C1%7C0%7C637100535555491183&sdata=Y3Zi1erRIWT%2F8K%2F5ZhtfSPCofmTkczyny89RagNWmhA%3D&reserved=0>
http://unicode.org/reports/tr35/<https://nam06.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Funicode.org%2Freports%2Ftr35%2F&data=02%7C01%7Cpetercon%40microsoft.com%7C19558599ac7d421157fc08d76f8fc274%7C72f988bf86f141af91ab2d7cd011db47%7C1%7C0%7C637100535555496180&sdata=fezBI46al7DmxtciBBIwI7Fj%2Fuuyor7d8uB7xdyvzM4%3D&reserved=0>
The regular order of attributes to a language tag (language identifier) is “lang-geogr” (dialect), or “lang-script” (language written in a certain script) or “lang-script-geogr” (language in a script in a certain region).. In between, a “t” (for “transform” in the meaning of transcription, transliteration, translation or other) may be inserted.

>From your experience/problems with video technology (and HTML), the questions to you would be:

  1.  Many true sign languages (se definitions below), such as “ase” (American Sign Language [ASL], which /fictively/ might even have a Newfoundland and Labrador variety – to be coded ase-CA-NL in line with BCP47 rules) have already a language identifier.
Does it need another attribute to further specify them as a sign language? In that case, an attribute must be found which is different from “sgn”. How could it look like?
  2.  In the case of a signed language modality, such as “Signing Exact English” the core language identifier for English would be “eng”. It would need an attribute to identify it as the signed language modality (which could be followed by a country code, if there are “dialects” of /fictive/ eng-xxx-AUS meaning “Signing Exact English as used in Australia”. What could “xxx” indicating “signed language modality look like?
  3.  It probably would not help to use an attribute identifier “Xxxx” in the slot of “script code”, as a signed language modality might slightly differ depending on the script used, even if it is the same spoken language (represented in different scripts in different areas/communities).
  4.  Could the “t” (transform) symbol be of help – as a given signed language modality somehow is a “transformation” of a spoken language?


  1.  The above questions (resp. the answer to them) could have an impact on ISO 639 and ISO/TR 21636 insofar as we should not formulate provisions in these documents which conflict with other standards. We should rather try to find generic solutions.

The question to Doug is, how the BCP and Unicode rules deal with the above-mentioned difference between (true) “individual sign languages” and the “signed language modality” (as a sort of “transform” of any individual language)? see the respective terminology entries below

Best regards
Christian


p.s.
In the most recent revised version of ISO 639-4 we came up with the following terminology entries:
individual sign language
NOT: signed language
individual language (3.1.3) having the visual-spatial language modality (3.5.1) as basic modality
Note 1 to entry: Usually “sign language” appears as part of the name of the respective individual language.
EXAMPLE: ASL (American Sign Language); )

signed language modality
NOT: sign language
visual-spatial language modality (3.5.1) that uses a combination of hand shapes, palm orientation and movement of the hand, arm or body, and facial expression