Re: [Slim] IETF last call for draft-ietf-slim-negotiating-human-language (Section 5.4)

[Randall Gellens <[e-mail]>]

At 8:59 PM +0100 2/14/17, Gunnar Hellström wrote:

>  Den 2017-02-14 kl. 19:05, skrev Randy Presuhn:
>
>>  Hi -
>>
>>  On 2/14/2017 9:40 AM, Randall Gellens wrote:
>>>  At 11:01 AM +0100 2/14/17, Gunnar Hellström wrote:
>>>
>>>>   My proposal for a reworded section 5.4 is:
>>>>
>>>>   5.4.  Unusual language indications
>>>>
>>>>   It is possible to specify an unusual indication where the language
>>>>   specified may look unexpected for the media type.
>>>>
>>>>   For such cases the following guidance SHALL be applied for the
>>>>  humintlang attributes used in these situations.
>>>>
>>>>   1.    A view of a speaking person in the video stream SHALL, when it
>>>>  has relevance for speech perception, be indicated by a Language-Tag
>>>>  for spoken/written language with the "Zxxx" script subtag to indicate
>>>>  that the contents is not written.
>>>>
>>>>   2.    Text captions included in the video stream SHALL be indicated
>>>>  by a Language-Tag for spoken/written language.
>>>>
>>>>   3.    Any approximate representation of sign language or
>>>>  fingerspelling in the text media stream SHALL be indicated by a
>>>>  Language-Tag for a sign language in text media.
>>>>
>>>>   4.    When sign language related audio from a person using sign
>>>>  language is of importance for language communication, this SHALL be
>>>>  indicated by a Language-Tag for a sign language in audio media.
>>>
>>>  [RG] As I said, I think we should avoid specifying this until we have
>>>  deployment experience.
>>  ...
>>
>>  From a process perspective, it's far easier to remove constraints
>>  as a specification advances than it is to add them.
>  I agree. It is often better to specify 
> normatively as far as you can imagine, so that 
> interoperability and good functionality is 
> achieved. Stopping halfway and have MAY in the 
> specifications creates uncertainty and less 
> useful specifications.

My reading of what Randy says is the opposite of 
Gunnar's.  In my reading, Randy points out that 
is it easier to remove the SHOULD NOT in the 
future then it is to change the meaning of the 
combinations or switch to a different mechanism.

In my experience, it's better to specify only 
what we know we need and what we know we 
understand.  Speculative specifications "as far 
as you can imagine" more often lead to 
interoperability problems, unnecessary 
complexity, limitations on what's needed in the 
future, and divergent implementations.

>
>  Furthermore, in this case we succeeded to 
> discuss and sort out the interpretation of the 
> unusual combinations.
>  I am very glad that we sorted out the 
> difference between 1 and 2, and they are both 
> real-life cases.
>
>  3 is not at all common, but I have seen 
> products claiming to work for real-time 
> communication with sign representation in text. 
> So it is good to have it settled.
>
>  4. Is a bit more far fetched and may cause some 
> questioning if there are real cases, and where 
> the line should be drawn between indicating a 
> spoken languge in the audio stream and 
> indicating a sign language in the audio stream.
>  As I wiew it now, this combination will be very 
> rare, but it is anyway good to be specific and 
> normative about its coding.


-- 
Randall Gellens
Opinions are personal;    facts are suspect;    I speak for myself only
-------------- Randomly selected tag: ---------------
A day for firm decisions!!!!!  Or is it?