Re: [Slim] Moving forward on draft-ietf-slim-negotiating-human-language

Randall Gellens <rg+ietf@randy.pensive.org> Mon, 20 November 2017 14:55 UTC

Return-Path: <rg+ietf@randy.pensive.org>
X-Original-To: slim@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: slim@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 26183129AA8 for <slim@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 20 Nov 2017 06:55:17 -0800 (PST)
X-Quarantine-ID: <0HaAO4cCUHSd>
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Amavis-Alert: BAD HEADER SECTION, Duplicate header field: "MIME-Version"
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.899
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.899 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 0HaAO4cCUHSd for <slim@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 20 Nov 2017 06:55:15 -0800 (PST)
Received: from turing.pensive.org (turing.pensive.org [99.111.97.161]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8C3DA129AB6 for <slim@ietf.org>; Mon, 20 Nov 2017 06:55:15 -0800 (PST)
Received: from [99.111.97.136] (99.111.97.161) by turing.pensive.org with ESMTP (EIMS X 3.3.9); Mon, 20 Nov 2017 06:55:20 -0800
Mime-Version: 1.0
Message-Id: <p06240600d6389cd2043f@[99.111.97.136]>
In-Reply-To: <CAOW+2dv5NSiCbW=p1exvPV=PF8YCVdiz2gi-OCxmaUB-jGe22w@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAOW+2dsZtuciPiKMfif=ZmUqBcUd9TyYtL5gPYDp7ZfLOHHDBA@mail.gmail.com> <p06240600d637c6f98ecc@99.111.97.136> <CAOW+2dv5NSiCbW=p1exvPV=PF8YCVdiz2gi-OCxmaUB-jGe22w@mail.gmail.com>
X-Mailer: Eudora for Mac OS X
Date: Mon, 20 Nov 2017 06:55:11 -0800
To: Bernard Aboba <bernard.aboba@gmail.com>
From: Randall Gellens <rg+ietf@randy.pensive.org>
Cc: slim@ietf.org
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" ; format="flowed"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/slim/-lxx_PBknhTabnvgF0ZL1I7ikDg>
Subject: Re: [Slim] Moving forward on draft-ietf-slim-negotiating-human-language
X-BeenThere: slim@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22
Precedence: list
List-Id: Selection of Language for Internet Media <slim.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/slim>, <mailto:slim-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/slim/>
List-Post: <mailto:slim@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:slim-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/slim>, <mailto:slim-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 20 Nov 2017 14:55:17 -0000

At 7:47 PM -0800 11/19/17, Bernard Aboba wrote:

>  "So let's delete Section 5.4 and be done with it.  Neither of the 
> statements is necessary."
>
>  [BA]  I agree that Section 5.4 does not add much value as it stands.
>
>  "Non-signed" is not used outside of Section 5.4, so there would not 
> appear to be a need to define it if Section 5.4 were to be deleted.
>
>  However, the term "signed" is used in 7 other places in the 
> document other than in Section 5.4.

But none of those instances are normative.

>  So we may need to find a reference to define that term.

Because the uses of the term are descriptive and mostly background, I 
do not think we need to add a definition or even a reference to a 
definition of the term.

--Randall

>
>  If Gunnar's suggested definition can be confirmed,  this might be 
> as simple as adding a reference to the IANA language tag repository.
>
>  On Sun, Nov 19, 2017 at 3:52 PM, Randall Gellens 
> <<mailto:rg+ietf@randy.pensive.org>rg+ietf@randy.pensive.org> wrote:
>
>  My view of issue #43 remains that we do not need to specify a 
> mechanism for determining which tags are signed.  In the email 
> discussion of the past month or so, I fear we are drifting into 
> adding complexity rather than removing it.  I think the way forward 
> is to keep this document as simple as possible.  As Bernard notes 
> in his email of 10/23, there is no benefit in this case of 
> explicitly saying that certain things are not defined.  Since the 
> document does not define them, they are undefined in the document.
>
>  At 6:51 PM -0700 10/23/17, Bernard Aboba wrote:
>
>   In other words,it is not clear to me how Section 5.4's discussion 
> of scope improves or clarifies the situation in any way - and there 
> is some possibility that it could cause problems.
>
>
>
>  I believe comment #43 should be closed as no longer applicable, 
> since the text against which it was generated has been deleted. 
> (I've said this before, and I believe it remains the case.)
>
>  The comment from which #43 derives was made against a version of 
> the document that had text explicitly discussing signed versus 
> unsigned tags.  That text was subsequently deleted.
>
>  Here is the comment from which #43 derived:
>
>      5.2.  New 'humintlang-send' and 'humintlang-recv' attributes
>
>      Note that while signed language tags are used with a video stream
>   to
>      indicate sign language, a spoken language tag for a video stream
>   in
>      parallel with an audio stream with the same spoken language tag
>      indicates a request for a supplemental video stream to see the
>      speaker.
>
>   And there's a similar paragraph in 5.4:
>
>      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.
>
>
>   I think this mechanism needs to be described more exactly, and in
>   particular, it should not depend on the UA understanding which
>   language tags are spoken language tags.  It seems to me that a
>   workable rule is that there is an audio stream and a video stream and
>   they specify exactly the same language tag in their respective
>   humintlang attributes.  In that case, it is a request for a spoken
>   language with simultaneous video of the speaker, and those requests
>   should be considered satisfied only if both streams can be
>   established.
>
>
>  The offending text that was in 5.2 and 5.4 was deleted.
>
>  The only remaining text that even mentions the issue is Section 5.4:
>
>     The behavior when specifying a non-signed language tag for a video
>     media stream, or a signed language tag for an audio or text media
>     stream, is not defined in this document.
>
>     The problem of knowing which language tags are signed and which are
>     not is out of scope of this document.
>
>  So, let's delete Section 5.4 and be done with it.  Neither of the 
> statements is necessary.
>
>  --
>  Randall Gellens
>  Opinions are personal;    facts are suspect;    I speak for myself only
>  -------------- Randomly selected tag: ---------------
>  Make it right before you make it faster.


-- 
Randall Gellens
Opinions are personal;    facts are suspect;    I speak for myself only
-------------- Randomly selected tag: ---------------
You see, wire telegraph is a kind of very, very long cat.  You
pull his tail in New York and his head is meowing in Los Angeles.
Do you understand this?  And radio operates in exactly the same
way: you send signals here, they receive them there.  The only
difference is that there is no cat.            --Albert Einstein