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

[Gunnar Hellström <[e-mail]>]

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.

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.

Gunnar

>
> Randy
>

-- 
-----------------------------------------
Gunnar Hellström
Omnitor
[e-mail]
[phone]