Re: [Ltru] Proposed -t0- subtag

Mark Davis ☕ <mark@macchiato.com> Sun, 24 July 2011 22:10 UTC

Return-Path: <mark.edward.davis@gmail.com>
X-Original-To: ltru@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ltru@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 56B4A21F86E6 for <ltru@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 24 Jul 2011 15:10:33 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.529
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.529 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.263, BAYES_00=-2.599, FM_FORGED_GMAIL=0.622, HTML_FONT_FACE_BAD=0.884, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, MIME_8BIT_HEADER=0.3, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id e8kTi3EhfCkC for <ltru@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 24 Jul 2011 15:10:32 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-gy0-f172.google.com (mail-gy0-f172.google.com [209.85.160.172]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0D4AB21F863E for <ltru@ietf.org>; Sun, 24 Jul 2011 15:10:31 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by gyd5 with SMTP id 5so2232267gyd.31 for <ltru@ietf.org>; Sun, 24 Jul 2011 15:10:31 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=mime-version:sender:in-reply-to:references:date :x-google-sender-auth:message-id:subject:from:to:cc:content-type; bh=DL/ptQI0AIekD5xS6zuOnDtYW6WiUU1ITw8OylGg2AA=; b=enKr8vks2DOpSzXK7b3/qZ9wRhw9GSgG5ZVkgvUW7f9JUCPQUbcm3YX4UNrL4X2/5Z Z5isWbiiiNiD31mu1pjlGE+drI6IsC5G9CEkSWfculQKkX1RC+dENdqrFTXJm/wKDowa rZpQmJGjclv9gO6FMzWVeEtKb1XVeM3JQTv58=
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.151.122.7 with SMTP id z7mr3757306ybm.307.1311545431346; Sun, 24 Jul 2011 15:10:31 -0700 (PDT)
Sender: mark.edward.davis@gmail.com
Received: by 10.151.83.9 with HTTP; Sun, 24 Jul 2011 15:10:31 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <2CB55BFC7405E94F830537BD924318D5EBF16A4ACD@USSDIXMSG11.am.sony.com>
References: <079D0DFD667C499EA3F54382C9E07BE2@DougEwell> <2CB55BFC7405E94F830537BD924318D5EBF16A4AC5@USSDIXMSG11.am.sony.com> <CAJ2xs_HkFeaKUx-Q2_b5mJ5eJF6kLd7AFzuFSA7hSZe3U8eqDA@mail.gmail.com> <2CB55BFC7405E94F830537BD924318D5EBF16A4ACD@USSDIXMSG11.am.sony.com>
Date: Sun, 24 Jul 2011 15:10:31 -0700
X-Google-Sender-Auth: Sqf8UDG9jO2Gtvv0216H_y35j_Q
Message-ID: <CAJ2xs_HehAF+MX82+sfaV+uGEGfwa5bUtayNMnk4_V=Abf-E9A@mail.gmail.com>
From: =?UTF-8?B?TWFyayBEYXZpcyDimJU=?= <mark@macchiato.com>
To: "Broome, Karen" <Karen.Broome@am.sony.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=000e0cd5c7368ace4204a8d7f70a
Cc: "ltru@ietf.org" <ltru@ietf.org>, Doug Ewell <doug@ewellic.org>
Subject: Re: [Ltru] Proposed -t0- subtag
X-BeenThere: ltru@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: Language Tag Registry Update working group discussion list <ltru.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/ltru>, <mailto:ltru-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ltru>
List-Post: <mailto:ltru@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ltru-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ltru>, <mailto:ltru-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 24 Jul 2011 22:10:33 -0000

>From BCP47:

       *  When labeling content that is unwritten (such as a recording
          of human speech), the script subtag should not be used, even
          if the language is customarily written in several scripts.
          Thus, the subtitles to a movie might use the tag "uz-Arab"
          (Uzbek, Arabic script), but the audio track for the same
          language would be tagged simply "uz".  (The tag "uz-Zxxx"
          could also be used where content is not written, as the subtag
          'Zxxx' represents the "Code for unwritten documents".)


Mark
*— Il meglio è l’inimico del bene —*


On Sun, Jul 24, 2011 at 12:13, Broome, Karen <Karen.Broome@am.sony.com>wrote;wrote:

> Do you regularly have the “same” content in multiple audio and text
> versions and need to make that distinction? I guess why I wouldn’t recommend
> it to the motion picture community is that it’s a very text-centric way of
> looking at it. It may “work” but I’m guessing if I knew how you used the
> tag, I’d feel you were misrepresenting the tag’s semantics, which were
> always fuzzy and have changed over time.  Is your usage based on the tag’s
> original semantics or its meaning today? Its definition now seems like a bit
> of an oxymoron to me, but I don’t take issue if others find it useful. I
> just think the motion picture industry should likely avoid it as I suspect
> its use in the wild is fairly inconsistent.****
>
> ** **
>
> Regards,****
>
> ** **
>
> Karen Broome****
>
> ** **
>
> *From:* mark.edward.davis@gmail.com [mailto:mark.edward.davis@gmail.com] *On
> Behalf Of *Mark Davis ?
> *Sent:* Sunday, July 24, 2011 10:19 AM
> *To:* Broome, Karen
> *Cc:* Doug Ewell; ltru@ietf.org
>
> *Subject:* Re: [Ltru] Proposed -t0- subtag****
>
> ** **
>
> We are using Zxxx for spoken-only content, and haven't had any problems
> with that.****
>
> ** **
>
> Mark****
>
> *— Il meglio è l’inimico del bene —*
>
> ****
>
> On Sun, Jul 24, 2011 at 10:01, Broome, Karen <Karen.Broome@am.sony.com>
> wrote:****
>
> Hmm. Need to give this some thought and read the draft a little more
> closely.
>
> Long ago, I thought it might be appropriate for SMPTE or a similar body to
> register a singleton and use it to indicate subtitled/written or
> dubbed/spoken language, but seeing this addition I'm thinking it through
> again. I think the usage is likely more general than just the motion picture
> industry. "Zxxx" (code for unwritten documents) is not something I'll likely
> recommend any time soon for the motion picture industry. I've always opposed
> that for use to describe spoken language "tracks" though I know my use cases
> awhile back may have supported the creation of this tag. In most cases, it
> is true that the language mode can be inferred, but this is not always the
> case.
>
> Regards,
>
> Karen Broome****
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: ltru-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:ltru-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of
> Doug Ewell
> Sent: Sunday, July 24, 2011 9:52 AM
> To: ltru@ietf.org
> Subject: Re: [Ltru] Proposed -t0- subtag****
>
> "Broome, Karen" <Karen dot Broome at am dot sony dot com> wrote:
>
> > Forgive me if I'm only able to skim these e-mails, but I'm wondering
> > if there might be a parallel here with a use case like: English
> > language film gets translated into Spoken Japanese (dubbed) for one
> > market/format and Written Japanese (subtitles/captions/AD) for
> > another.
>
> Testing my understanding of the proposed extension, I think both would
> be "ja-t-en".  The second could alternatively be "ja-Jpan-t-en", but
> since 'Jpan' is the Suppress-Script for 'ja', it could normally be
> omitted unless one felt it necessary to call attention to the writing
> system.
>
> Folks who insist that spoken content needs to be tagged as such, not
> inferred from the context, would probably say the first tag should be
> "jp-Zxxx-t-en".
>
> The point is that the same Japanese content is converted along two
> discrete paths; there is no indication that one is converted from the
> other.  The source in each case is English ("-t-en").
>
> --
> Doug Ewell | Thornton, Colorado, USA | RFC 5645, 4645, UTN #14
> www.ewellic.org | www.facebook.com/doug.ewell | @DougEwell ­
>
> _______________________________________________
> Ltru mailing list
> Ltru@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ltru
> _______________________________________________
> Ltru mailing list
> Ltru@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ltru****
>
> ** **
>
> _______________________________________________
> Ltru mailing list
> Ltru@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ltru
>
>