Re: [Ltru] Proposed -t0- subtag

"Broome, Karen" <> Mon, 25 July 2011 05:11 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 16AAE5E8009 for <>; Sun, 24 Jul 2011 22:11:45 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.572
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.572 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=1.726, BAYES_00=-2.599, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, MIME_8BIT_HEADER=0.3, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4]
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id kGonlRN66a8U for <>; Sun, 24 Jul 2011 22:11:39 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id C740B5E8005 for <>; Sun, 24 Jul 2011 22:11:38 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( by ( with Microsoft SMTP Server id; Mon, 25 Jul 2011 05:11:37 +0000
Received: from mail88-tx2 (localhost.localdomain []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 94B7F15800D2; Mon, 25 Jul 2011 05:11:37 +0000 (UTC)
X-SpamScore: -39
X-BigFish: VPS-39(zzc89bh9371M179dN542Mc857h98dKzz1202hzz1033IL8275bh8275dhz2fh668h839h61h)
X-Spam-TCS-SCL: 0:0
X-Forefront-Antispam-Report: CIP:; KIP:(null); UIP:(null); IPVD:NLI;;; EFVD:NLI
Received-SPF: pass (mail88-tx2: domain of designates as permitted sender) client-ip=;; ; ;
Received: from mail88-tx2 (localhost.localdomain []) by mail88-tx2 (MessageSwitch) id 1311570697138092_31826; Mon, 25 Jul 2011 05:11:37 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from (unknown []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1CF655A804E; Mon, 25 Jul 2011 05:11:37 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from ( by ( with Microsoft SMTP Server id; Mon, 25 Jul 2011 05:11:37 +0000
Received: from ( []) by (Switch-3.4.2/Switch-3.3.2mp) with ESMTP id p6P5AVoO031955; Mon, 25 Jul 2011 05:11:36 GMT
Received: from ( []) by (Switch-3.4.2/Switch-3.4.2) with ESMTP id p6P58q8b005367 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=RC4-MD5 bits=128 verify=NO); Mon, 25 Jul 2011 05:11:35 GMT
Received: from ( by ( with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 8.1.393.1; Mon, 25 Jul 2011 01:10:42 -0400
Received: from ([]) by ([]) with mapi; Sun, 24 Jul 2011 22:10:41 -0700
From: "Broome, Karen" <>
To: =?utf-8?B?TWFyayBEYXZpcyDimJU=?= <>
Date: Sun, 24 Jul 2011 22:10:38 -0700
Thread-Topic: [Ltru] Proposed -t0- subtag
Thread-Index: AcxKToNNf3s9dFvaSj6mEFZvtwmHGgAON/Yg
Message-ID: <>
References: <079D0DFD667C499EA3F54382C9E07BE2@DougEwell> <> <> <> <>
In-Reply-To: <>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
acceptlanguage: en-US
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_2CB55BFC7405E94F830537BD924318D5EBF16A4AF6USSDIXMSG11am_"
MIME-Version: 1.0
Cc: "" <>, Doug Ewell <>
Subject: Re: [Ltru] Proposed -t0- subtag
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: Language Tag Registry Update working group discussion list <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 25 Jul 2011 05:11:45 -0000

Sorry, I was thinking the original ISO registration had gone through as “No Linguistic content” but now I’m remembering that this was somewhat of a partner tag for “zxx” which does mean that. I wasn’t referencing the RFC text per se, which gives the user an option – and I’m OK with the option. Still, I generally find this muddy. I don’t want to look to a script tag to define the language mode because there are commonly used language modes that are not written forms. The disconnect with the “zxx” tag this tags mirrors may be another reason to avoid use to indicate the language mode.

I am conscious of avoiding the interspecies use cases once raised on this list, but the motion picture industry’s use cases might indicate a need for something slightly more specific in the area of language mode. Not sure if it fits in with this work, but I thought I’d mention it.


From: [] On Behalf Of Mark Davis ?
Sent: Sunday, July 24, 2011 3:11 PM
To: Broome, Karen
Cc:; Doug Ewell
Subject: Re: [Ltru] Proposed -t0- subtag

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".)

— Il meglio è l’inimico del bene —

On Sun, Jul 24, 2011 at 12:13, Broome, Karen <<>> 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.


Karen Broome

From:<> [<>] On Behalf Of Mark Davis ?
Sent: Sunday, July 24, 2011 10:19 AM
To: Broome, Karen
Cc: Doug Ewell;<>

Subject: Re: [Ltru] Proposed -t0- subtag

We are using Zxxx for spoken-only content, and haven't had any problems with that.

— Il meglio è l’inimico del bene —
On Sun, Jul 24, 2011 at 10:01, Broome, Karen <<>> 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.


Karen Broome

-----Original Message-----
From:<> [<>] On Behalf Of Doug Ewell
Sent: Sunday, July 24, 2011 9:52 AM
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

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

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<> |<> | @DougEwell ­

Ltru mailing list<>
Ltru mailing list<>

Ltru mailing list<>