I need to correct my statement that I have not seen the construct . 
"non-sign language" before. Now I have.

A very rough search gave hits where the use is quite similar to how it 
is used in draft version -19 in a term containing some more words as 
specifiers to a noun at the end.

Example 1:

https://www.cio.com/article/2381300/vertical-industries/microsoft-uses-kinect-to-interpret-sign-language-from-deaf-people.html

Search for "non-sign", and you will find:
"It's thought that the system could help deaf users make presentations 
to non-sign language speaking crowds."

Example 2:

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2693477/

Search for "non-sign" and you will find:

"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."

I think that that confirms that the issue can be closed using any of the 
now 5 solutions I have presented.


Gunnar


Den 2017-12-06 kl. 18:21, skrev Gunnar Hellström:
>
> Even if I have said that for me we can close the issue keeping the 
> current wording, I want to explain my view of the wording and test a 
> new proposal.
>
> It is the term "non-sign language tag" we discuss.
>
> That makes the "tag" to be the main noun, and what is before it can be 
> seen as specifiers for "tag". I get the impression that Keith has seen 
> this and want to make that clear.
>
> However, the "non-sign" rather applies to the language. It is for when 
> the language is not a signed language we want to express the 
> conditions for use of the tag. My proposal #4 is intended to make that 
> very clear, but resulted in inconveniently complex wording.
>
> I want to try a compromise: "tag for a non-signed language"
>
> I use "non-signed" instead or "non-sign" because "non-signed" is used 
> elsewhere while I never saw "non-sign" before. Non-signed is also a 
> self-sustained verb, while I do not really know what "non-sign" is 
> grammatically.
>
> That makes a new wording proposal for 5.4 be:
> ------------------new 
> wording----------------------------------------------------------------
>
>   A sign language tag with a video media stream is interpreted as an
>     indication for sign language in the video stream.  A tag for a non-signed
>     language with a text media stream is interpreted as an indication
>     for written language in the text stream.  A tag for a non-signed language
>     with an audio media stream is interpreted as an indication for spoken
>     language in the audio stream.
>
>     This document does not define any other use for language tags in
>     video media (such as how to indicate visible captions in the video
>     stream).
>
>     In the IANA registry of language subtags perBCP 47 <https://tools.ietf.org/html/bcp47>  [RFC5646 <https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc5646>], a
>     language subtag with a Type field "extlang" combined with a Prefix
>     field value "sgn" indicates a tag for a sign language.  The absence of such
>     "sgn" prefix indicates a tag for a non-signed language.
> ------------------end of new wording---------------------------------------
>   Is this more acceptable by all?
>
> /Gunnar
>
> Den 2017-12-06 kl. 02:21, skrev Bernard Aboba:
>> I can live with #1.
>>
>>> On Dec 5, 2017, at 5:29 PM, Gunnar Hellström<gunnar.hellstrom@omnitor.se>  wrote:
>>>
>>>> Den 2017-12-05 kl. 20:27, skrev Randall Gellens:
>>>> The argument over the use of "non-" is pointless and a waste of time. We should not keep reopening it.  The draft clear and unambiguous.
>>> I tend to agree.
>>> I provided four alternatives in order to try to reach consensus:
>>>
>>> 1. Leave "non-sign" as is.
>>>
>>> 2. Replace "non-sign language" with "non-sign-language".
>>>
>>> 3. Replace "non-sign" with "non-signed"
>>>
>>> 4. Replace "non-sign language tag" with "language tag for a language that is not signed"
>>>
>>> I can accept any of these, but have myself a slight preference for #3, "non-signed".
>>>
>>> Now, since Randall still prefers #1, I suggest that we close the issue with the conclusion that we keep it as it is in -19.
>>>
>>> Regards
>>>
>>> Gunnar
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> -- 
>>> -----------------------------------------
>>> Gunnar Hellström
>>> Omnitor
>>> gunnar.hellstrom@omnitor.se
>>> +46 708 204 288
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> SLIM mailing list
>>> SLIM@ietf.org
>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/slim
>
> -- 
> -----------------------------------------
> Gunnar Hellström
> Omnitor
> gunnar.hellstrom@omnitor.se
> +46 708 204 288

-- 
-----------------------------------------
Gunnar Hellström
Omnitor
gunnar.hellstrom@omnitor.se
+46 708 204 288