Re: [MMUSIC] draft-gellens-mmusic-negotiating-human-language-00.txt - two modalities in video

Gunnar Hellstrom <gunnar.hellstrom@omnitor.se> Mon, 08 July 2013 12:08 UTC

Return-Path: <gunnar.hellstrom@omnitor.se>
X-Original-To: mmusic@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: mmusic@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3043F11E81B6 for <mmusic@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 8 Jul 2013 05:08:48 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.598
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.598 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id ekSOS8oY404G for <mmusic@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 8 Jul 2013 05:08:41 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from vsp-authed-02-02.binero.net (vsp-authed02.binero.net [195.74.38.226]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with SMTP id 6B34021F826B for <mmusic@ietf.org>; Mon, 8 Jul 2013 05:08:39 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from smtp01.binero.se (unknown [195.74.38.28]) by vsp-authed-02-02.binero.net (Halon Mail Gateway) with ESMTP for <mmusic@ietf.org>; Mon, 8 Jul 2013 14:08:31 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from [192.168.50.38] (h79n2fls31o933.telia.com [212.181.137.79]) (Authenticated sender: gunnar.hellstrom@omnitor.se) by smtp-02-01.atm.binero.net (Postfix) with ESMTPA id 8A2073A11A for <mmusic@ietf.org>; Mon, 8 Jul 2013 14:08:31 +0200 (CEST)
Message-ID: <51DAABC0.5030205@omnitor.se>
Date: Mon, 08 Jul 2013 14:08:32 +0200
From: Gunnar Hellstrom <gunnar.hellstrom@omnitor.se>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:17.0) Gecko/20130620 Thunderbird/17.0.7
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: "mmusic (E-mail)" <mmusic@ietf.org>
References: <20130707223940.32193.45404.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <51DA8FA6.4060705@omnitor.se>
In-Reply-To: <51DA8FA6.4060705@omnitor.se>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="------------050103020308090703000309"
Subject: Re: [MMUSIC] draft-gellens-mmusic-negotiating-human-language-00.txt - two modalities in video
X-BeenThere: mmusic@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: Multiparty Multimedia Session Control Working Group <mmusic.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/mmusic>, <mailto:mmusic-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/mmusic>
List-Post: <mailto:mmusic@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:mmusic-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mmusic>, <mailto:mmusic-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 08 Jul 2013 12:08:48 -0000

There is a good description of avoidance of using subtags in 7.1, third 
paragraph from the end.

It may be good to inform after that paragraph about the language tags 
that can be used for video.
There are separate language tags for sign languages.
So, for the video medium, that can be used to distinguish between two 
different usages of video; for sign language versus for assisting 
hearing with the view of the speaking human for lip-reading or for just 
emphasizing the understanding by a view of the speaker.

Insert a new paragraph to be the third from the end of 7.1:

For indication of preferences and capabilities of sign languages, the 
specific sign language tags of RFC 5646 SHALL be used in the video media 
specifications.
Preference and capability of a spoken language tag (i.e. not a sign 
language) indicated in the video media specification SHOULD be used for 
indicating a view of the speaking human that may be needed or preferred 
for speech-reading assisted hearing.

Regards

Gunnar
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Gunnar Hellström
Omnitor
gunnar.hellstrom@omnitor.se
+46708204288

>