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

[Randall Gellens <[e-mail]>]

At 12:09 AM +0100 2/14/17, Gunnar Hellström wrote:

>  I prefer that you wait for conclusion on the topic of "silly states".
>
>  And I agree with Bernard that we should (and 
> can) be normative and explicit in how to 
> interpret all the unusual combinations.

I think we're better off not saying what the 
meaning is since we do not have a deployed base 
of experience.  The replacement text allows 
cooperating implementations to send such states 
if they wish.  If consensus emerges later as to 
what such states mean, a revised draft or an 
extension draft can be published that spells it 
out.



>  Den 2017-02-13 kl. 23:26, skrev Randall Gellens:
>>  At 11:06 AM -0800 2/13/17, Bernard Aboba wrote:
>>
>>>   Looking over Section 5.4, it seems to me 
>>> that the title "Silly States" may not be 
>>> appropriate, because it mixes discussion of 
>>> combinations of media and language that have 
>>> an "undefined" meaning with combinations for 
>>> which normative guidance can be provided  So 
>>> rather than having a single "Silly States" 
>>> section, perhaps we can have a section on 
>>> "Undefined States" (for those combinations 
>>> which have an undefined meaning) provide 
>>> normative guidance on defined combinations 
>>> elsewhere.
>>>
>>>
>>> 
>>> <https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-slim-negotiating-human-language-06#section-5.4>5.4. 
>>> Silly States
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>      It is possible to specify a "silly state" where the language
>>>      specified does not make sense for the media type, such as specifying
>>>      a signed language for an audio media stream.
>>>      An offer MUST NOT be created where the language does not make sense
>>>      for the media type.  If such an offer is received, the receiver MAY
>>>      reject the media, ignore the language specified, or attempt to
>>>      interpret the intent (e.g., if American Sign Language is specified
>>>      for an audio media stream, this might be interpreted as a desire to
>>>      use spoken English).
>>>
>>>      A spoken language tag for a video stream in conjunction with an audio
>>>      stream with the same language might indicate a request for
>>>      supplemental video to see the speaker.
>>>
>>>   [BA] Rather than using terms like "might" 
>>> for combinations that could have a
>>>   defined meaning, I would like to see the specification provide normative
>>>   language on these use cases. In particular, 
>>> I would like the specification to describe:
>>>
>>>   a. What it means when a spoken language tag 
>>> is included for a video stream.
>>>   Is this to be interpreted as a request for captioning?
>>>   b. What it means when a signed language tag 
>>> is included for an audio stream.
>>>   Is the meaning of this "undefined" and if so, should it be ignored?
>>>   c. What it means when a signed language tag is included for a text stream.
>>>
>>>   If some of these scenarios are not defined, the specification can say
>>>   "this combination does not have a defined meaning" or something like that.
>>
>>  I will change the section title to "Undefined 
>> Combinations" and replace the text with:
>>
>>     Specifying a non-signed language tag for a video media stream, or a
>>     signed language tag for a non-video media stream, is not defined.  An
>>     offer with such a combination SHOULD NOT be created.  If such an
>>     offer is received, the receiver MAY ignore the language specified.
>>
>>  I think this retains the intent of the old 
>> section while avoiding wading into the unclear 
>> issue of intent of such combinations.
>>
>
>  --
>  -----------------------------------------
>  Gunnar Hellström
>  Omnitor
>  [e-mail]
>  [phone]
>
>  _______________________________________________
>  SLIM mailing list
>  [e-mail]
>  https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/slim


-- 
Randall Gellens
Opinions are personal;    facts are suspect;    I speak for myself only
-------------- Randomly selected tag: ---------------
Please take note:
Do not read this fortune under penalty of law.
Violators will be prosecuted.
(Penal Code sec. 2.3.2 (II.a.))