Language Subtag Registration Form: variant "signed"

[Frank Ellermann]

John Cowan wrote:

> in the first case the lexical source for the signs is British
> SL, whereas in the second case it's Irish SL.

Yes, so far it's clear, and what practical relevance does that
have wrt tagged content ?  Is en-IE-signed "undecodable" for a
signer of en-GB-signed ?

In other words, would we today simply register -1901 and -1996
with a simple prefix de- and be done with it, or create a list
de, de-AT, de-CH, de-DE with apologies to BE, DK, IT, etc. ?

> I continue to believe that signed spoken languages should be
> handled with an extension so that both the lexical source
> (a SL) and the grammatical source (a spoken language) can be
> fully specified.

As long as that extension registry doesn't exist it's no reason
to reject the request.  But something is very odd with it, is
"signed" actually a kind of script, only signed, not written ?

Maybe a hypothetical "Lats" is better than "signed".  Assuming
that the used signs are somehow derived from "Latn".  It's
probably bogus to tag  en-Brai-signed  or similar.  Of course
Doug's request doesn't list prefix en, let alone en-Brai.  Bye