[Slim] Use of "non-sign" term

Bernard Aboba <bernard.aboba@gmail.com> Thu, 07 December 2017 19:08 UTC

Return-Path: <bernard.aboba@gmail.com>
X-Original-To: slim@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: slim@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 76254126BF7 for <slim@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 7 Dec 2017 11:08:27 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.998
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.998 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.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 GWFGCvZSEDc2 for <slim@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 7 Dec 2017 11:08:25 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-ua0-x233.google.com (mail-ua0-x233.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:400c:c08::233]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id A741B12009C for <slim@ietf.org>; Thu, 7 Dec 2017 11:08:25 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-ua0-x233.google.com with SMTP id i20so5982965uak.6 for <slim@ietf.org>; Thu, 07 Dec 2017 11:08:25 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:from:date:message-id:subject:to; bh=kIuUeLS9DNJ/EKv7QtROgKx9FstANXKdPdjjWwWPjpA=; b=q3GdMNRjV/F/9FB02jrdUOysEYH/a0JRxnsimxuu7vVCS1ogunaMsq+R65peYhcMAD rQ93iDPewTzHfG0yMncMIaNjhJAv5FSrqTLwqxp7xQ7DE1emi/BIAAhRKyhe+mQE2fb6 D6rWRoXThITLlugfnOUJya9zWlkilZWUqfJqEApOEFJKsMaRQMfBN40RcXriXMnJMT/o 7ZS565Kgqh3oepp1TJTDW4EHECys7u0n8viTTHibVaUgwDxylvp4C/kCKJ5lir3dp/A3 R86XxYHoaDEZX+saMifszzhK4yFdO4vlgl0BhIPlVeWGi1I3BUpgVSR5hYgcjgwUwSPl 0H9g==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:from:date:message-id:subject:to; bh=kIuUeLS9DNJ/EKv7QtROgKx9FstANXKdPdjjWwWPjpA=; b=bZY7RZYpRTztqjA1qQU5AEZMDe35LsVp1fOnhC6wqp6W8BXUG4Ofj6I8VpY6ku/siE rDWkAAMGz+CBV2LffKn8ms5aJuWo+eJx47ay2afrnL26BPWopt4EvTjpNQbfRqtBjL5l PHX3yBG/sFn4uxK+nY7o5OrVVeHyNo0oHVd1TgztfWOvwi+UUiweRjwwq4LkR/PLDJP6 9ZRMwtsx8ncPTpee0HHzAtvN/fjzuJ2l1P9KJOFx2YfMX1OVUitgp3Md6XyukCjP1C5l OgD1oNhbRtMA+hbCzOqEREPxVHM/S+9O6RGNsKBh0uoxlBBm5rMZCKXo8FGk+p95Po+0 1KeQ==
X-Gm-Message-State: AKGB3mL8SJJS3+k4DUkoozU5d8onexhIASdafOQg4ca8EbuF3me4X/PG NCRC5aNQYq82VK3uBj8M5sS91fJ+uhQFwW/RfJib6tWJ
X-Google-Smtp-Source: AGs4zMZyWbMSznYczLdQByGG0KmDekHhIsj/rGjGuDrWYuyFiBvGbGV5o0vE1j8iZ6sDT9yo98InhujL8jJyFtuG4ak=
X-Received: by 10.176.2.2 with SMTP id 2mr14804058uas.20.1512673704303; Thu, 07 Dec 2017 11:08:24 -0800 (PST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.159.54.230 with HTTP; Thu, 7 Dec 2017 11:08:03 -0800 (PST)
From: Bernard Aboba <bernard.aboba@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 7 Dec 2017 14:08:03 -0500
Message-ID: <CAOW+2du-HMiN81We93c0gN7ZowR5AGYJ4BRUC1Qn_7+xZau3Cg@mail.gmail.com>
To: slim@ietf.org
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="001a113dc680ce6329055fc4ca04"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/slim/gZyp1n3kyrb25wjsrnhZ-FpliQg>
Subject: [Slim] Use of "non-sign" term
X-BeenThere: slim@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22
Precedence: list
List-Id: Selection of Language for Internet Media <slim.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/slim>, <mailto:slim-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/slim/>
List-Post: <mailto:slim@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:slim-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/slim>, <mailto:slim-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 07 Dec 2017 19:08:27 -0000

Gunnar has made a  proposal for clarification of the language in Section
5.4 that would use "tag for a non-signed language" instead of "non-sign
language":
https://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/slim/current/msg01192.html

IMHO, this would yield a (slight) improvement in clarity.

At the same time, Gunnar has also found some use of the term "non-sign
language":
https://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/slim/current/msg01193.html

Such as:
"It's thought that the system could help deaf users make presentations to
non-sign language speaking crowds. "

and

"Several researchers (Corina et al., 1992
<https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2693477/#R5>; Emmorey et al.,
2004 <https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2693477/#R8>; Marshall
and Fink, 2001 <https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2693477/#R17>)
have established that different neural systems subserve sign language
production and non-sign language pantomimic _expression_."

It can be argued that the first usage uses non-sign to mean "crowds whose
members do not speak any sign language", which is not the same meaning we
are intending.

However, the second usage appears much closer to our intention.

Gunnar therefore proposes that the text can be left as is, and the only
objection appears to be from Keith.

Given the rather minor nature of the issue and the arguments, I believe WG
census is that it is acceptable for the document to be advanced as is, with
or without Gunnar's proposed change.