Re: [Slim] Proposed 5.4 text

[Gunnar Hellström <[e-mail]>]

Even if I have said that for me we can close the issue keeping the 
current wording, I want to explain my view of the wording and test a new 
proposal.

It is the term "non-sign language tag" we discuss.

That makes the "tag" to be the main noun, and what is before it can be 
seen as specifiers for "tag". I get the impression that Keith has seen 
this and want to make that clear.

However, the "non-sign" rather applies to the language. It is for when 
the language is not a signed language we want to express the conditions 
for use of the tag. My proposal #4 is intended to make that very clear, 
but resulted in inconveniently complex wording.

I want to try a compromise: "tag for a non-signed language"

I use "non-signed" instead or "non-sign" because "non-signed" is used 
elsewhere while I never saw "non-sign" before. Non-signed is also a 
self-sustained verb, while I do not really know what "non-sign" is 
grammatically.

That makes a new wording proposal for 5.4 be:
------------------new 
wording----------------------------------------------------------------

  A sign language tag with a video media stream is interpreted as an
    indication for sign language in the video stream.  A tag for a non-signed
    language with a text media stream is interpreted as an indication
    for written language in the text stream.  A tag for a non-signed language
    with an audio media stream is interpreted as an indication for spoken
    language in the audio stream.

    This document does not define any other use for language tags in
    video media (such as how to indicate visible captions in the video
    stream).

    In the IANA registry of language subtags perBCP 47 <https://tools.ietf.org/html/bcp47>  [RFC5646 <https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc5646>], a
    language subtag with a Type field "extlang" combined with a Prefix
    field value "sgn" indicates a tag for a sign language.  The absence of such
    "sgn" prefix indicates a tag for a non-signed language.
------------------end of new wording---------------------------------------
  Is this more acceptable by all?

/Gunnar


Den 2017-12-06 kl. 02:21, skrev Bernard Aboba:
> I can live with #1.
>
>> On Dec 5, 2017, at 5:29 PM, Gunnar Hellström <[e-mail]> wrote:
>>
>>> Den 2017-12-05 kl. 20:27, skrev Randall Gellens:
>>> The argument over the use of "non-" is pointless and a waste of time. We should not keep reopening it.  The draft clear and unambiguous.
>> I tend to agree.
>> I provided four alternatives in order to try to reach consensus:
>>
>> 1. Leave "non-sign" as is.
>>
>> 2. Replace "non-sign language" with "non-sign-language".
>>
>> 3. Replace "non-sign" with "non-signed"
>>
>> 4. Replace "non-sign language tag" with "language tag for a language that is not signed"
>>
>> I can accept any of these, but have myself a slight preference for #3, "non-signed".
>>
>> Now, since Randall still prefers #1, I suggest that we close the issue with the conclusion that we keep it as it is in -19.
>>
>> Regards
>>
>> Gunnar
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> -- 
>> -----------------------------------------
>> Gunnar Hellström
>> Omnitor
>> [e-mail]
>> [phone]
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> SLIM mailing list
>> [e-mail]
>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/slim

-- 
-----------------------------------------
Gunnar Hellström
Omnitor
[e-mail]
[phone]