Re: [Slim] Proposed 5.4 text

Gunnar Hellström <> Wed, 22 November 2017 21:14 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 715D9129BC6 for <>; Wed, 22 Nov 2017 13:14:28 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.6
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.6 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id hpTXU7ai6AvO for <>; Wed, 22 Nov 2017 13:14:26 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( []) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 33C4312EB5C for <>; Wed, 22 Nov 2017 13:14:26 -0800 (PST)
X-Halon-ID: 12dcb9c2-cfca-11e7-aaf5-005056917a89
Received: from [] (unknown []) by (Halon) with ESMTPSA id 12dcb9c2-cfca-11e7-aaf5-005056917a89; Wed, 22 Nov 2017 22:14:07 +0100 (CET)
To: Bernard Aboba <>
Cc:, Randall Gellens <>, Paul Kyzivat <>, Brian Rosen <>
References: <> <> <p06240600d637c6f98ecc@> <> <p06240600d6389cd2043f@> <> <> <> <> <> <p06240607d63a5312bbbe@> <> <p06240609d63a644ec5b6@> <> <> <> <> <>
From: =?UTF-8?Q?Gunnar_Hellstr=c3=b6m?= <>
Message-ID: <>
Date: Wed, 22 Nov 2017 22:14:19 +0100
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; WOW64; rv:52.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/52.4.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Content-Language: en-US
Archived-At: <>
Subject: Re: [Slim] Proposed 5.4 text
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22
Precedence: list
List-Id: Selection of Language for Internet Media <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 22 Nov 2017 21:14:28 -0000

Den 2017-11-22 kl. 17:20, skrev Bernard Aboba:
> On Nov 22, 2017, at 8:03 AM, Gunnar Hellström <> wrote:
>> What we want is an indication that the user is prepared / desires to have the view of a speaking person in video.
> The problem is that a written/spoken tag in video is ambiguous because it could also represent a desire for captioning. So there is a need to distinguish spoken from written language. We have not had consensus on how to do that, in general.

We had a reasoning yesterday that it is so unusual to provide text in a 
conversational video call in the video media stream that we could leave 
that usage undefined (it was used as mixed into the video image from the 
sending side in the early 2000s, and it is also possible to send text 
coded text elements in RFC 3640 MPEG4 video coding for presentation in 
the receiving end, but the impression is that these methods are not used 
nowadays in conversational calls) That leaves the only practically used 
case for non-sign language in video media in conversational calls be for 
a view of spoken language.
Randall introduced that view (about captions in video not being used in 
conversational calls) and I agreed. I know that is not total consensus, 
but there were at least not any declared conflicting views.

There are use cases for the use of a view of a speaking person in video.

It would be good if this reasoning makes you change your mind and check 
if we can have consensus for inserting the dropped sentence.

If not, I will stop arguing for that and accept that we need to take the 
effort to define how to indicate this use case at a later stage. The 
rest of section 5.4 is good now and explicitly allows further work and 
application agreements.


Gunnar Hellström
+46 708 204 288