Re: [Slim] Proposed 5.4 text

Gunnar Hellström <gunnar.hellstrom@omnitor.se> Sun, 03 December 2017 10:42 UTC

Return-Path: <gunnar.hellstrom@omnitor.se>
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 296201241FC for <slim@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 3 Dec 2017 02:42:21 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -5.4
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-5.4 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H2=-2.8, SPF_PASS=-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 g79CV1CkA0Kn for <slim@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 3 Dec 2017 02:42:17 -0800 (PST)
Received: from bin-vsp-out-03.atm.binero.net (bin-mail-out-05.binero.net [195.74.38.228]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 52D4C120713 for <slim@ietf.org>; Sun, 3 Dec 2017 02:42:17 -0800 (PST)
X-Halon-ID: 9a8d0aed-d816-11e7-811e-0050569116f7
Authorized-sender: gunnar.hellstrom@omnitor.se
Received: from [192.168.2.136] (unknown [83.209.159.245]) by bin-vsp-out-03.atm.binero.net (Halon) with ESMTPSA id 9a8d0aed-d816-11e7-811e-0050569116f7; Sun, 03 Dec 2017 11:42:05 +0100 (CET)
To: Keith Drage <drageke@ntlworld.com>, slim@ietf.org
References: <55f2b336-3f14-f49a-ec78-f00b0373db00@omnitor.se> <CAOW+2dsZtuciPiKMfif=ZmUqBcUd9TyYtL5gPYDp7ZfLOHHDBA@mail.gmail.com> <p06240600d637c6f98ecc@99.111.97.136> <CAOW+2dv5NSiCbW=p1exvPV=PF8YCVdiz2gi-OCxmaUB-jGe22w@mail.gmail.com> <p06240600d6389cd2043f@99.111.97.136> <97d9a6b8-de3b-9f79-483b-18376fcf0ced@omnitor.se> <CAOW+2dtpRoeYkMJzX9vyNUojJDax4DQUU2F4PauBwt1sm-83Hg@mail.gmail.com> <6812d89a-ba10-0947-5320-07374b8c071d@comcast.net> <CAOW+2dtodRVOyGg_Q83TCPXwL3jBccA-hpBhYfrPCAUjSm5zkQ@mail.gmail.com> <E83689D8-DF61-4A3A-A5B2-8B3C05AFFB1E@brianrosen.net> <p06240607d63a5312bbbe@99.111.97.136> <72f7975c-91f5-91c2-6d8c-4f66aec63cf9@omnitor.se> <p06240609d63a644ec5b6@99.111.97.136> <CAOW+2dsP3EB8OogBU4NO917isBsOWs3VWbXK-AG88XhK7ROu4A@mail.gmail.com> <85024248-d22d-6379-6194-fdb17c4c913a@ntlworld.com>
From: =?UTF-8?Q?Gunnar_Hellstr=c3=b6m?= <gunnar.hellstrom@omnitor.se>
Message-ID: <93ec6be8-1ced-e6da-3693-6cf66069c50c@omnitor.se>
Date: Sun, 3 Dec 2017 11:42:09 +0100
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; WOW64; rv:52.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/52.5.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <85024248-d22d-6379-6194-fdb17c4c913a@ntlworld.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="------------34D08F4B1E589ED1085780C6"
Content-Language: en-US
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/slim/LhLZD3QM5HDHZxFYGiLWV7Lj6zQ>
Subject: Re: [Slim] Proposed 5.4 text
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: Sun, 03 Dec 2017 10:42:21 -0000

Keith,

Continuing the discussion of "non-sign":

Den 2017-11-22 kl. 21:39, skrev Keith Drage:
> Why do we keep having to use this construct "non-sign", which in 
> itself is entirely meaningless. Surely in this case we are talking 
> about a either the absence of a language tag, or the absence of "sgn" 
> within a language tag. Why don't we just talk about the absence of 
> "sgn" where necessary.
We are talking about languages that are not signed. That is spoken or 
written. We tried to use the term "spoken/written language" for them, 
but got opposition from language experts. The end users need to know 
what modality to use that fits the negotiation. We have realized that 
also the devices and network components could sometimes have benefit of 
"knowing" the intended modality. So it is appropriate to tell how to 
handle signed languages versus non-signed languages. The "sgn" is a 
language tag prefix that is usually not accompanying the language tag 
when it is sent, but can be found in a separate entry for the language 
in the language tag registry. Talking about the absence of "sgn" within 
the language tag is therefore not correct and we have therefore included 
the description of how to find out if a language is a sign language or not.

When we needed to move away from using "spoken/written language", the 
replacement "non-sign language" was proposed. I think it expresses what 
we need, but there are certainly other ways to express the same thing.

Randall proposed that if we cannot keep "non-sign language", we could 
change it to "non-sign-language" to more clearly indicate that we talk 
about a language that is not a sign language. I

I also thought about using "non-signed language". That matches well the 
modality indicated in "spoken language" and "written language". The term 
"signed language" is used intermixed with "sign language" in both RFC 
5646 and our draft and elsewhere.

Other constructs are possible, but easily get complex. Here is one 
possible example using the term "tag for a language that is not signed" 
instead of "non-sign language tag"
--------------------------current wording in 5.4--------------------------

  A sign language tag with a video media stream is interpreted as an
    indication for sign language in the video stream.  A non-sign
    language tag with a text media stream is interpreted as an indication
    for written language in the text stream.  A non-sign language tag
    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 sign language tag.  The absense of such
    "sgn" prefix indicates a non-sign language tag.


--------------------possible new wording - but not my favourite proposal---------------
    A sign language tag with a video media stream is interpreted as an
    indication for sign language in the video stream.  A
    language tag for a language that is not signed, used with a text
    media stream is interpreted as an indication
    for written language in the text stream.  A language tag for a language
    that is not signed, used
    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 sign language tag.  The absence of such
    "sgn" prefix indicates a language tag for a language that is not signed.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


So, what do we prefer:

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 a slight preference for #3, 
"non-signed".



>
> As an aside I note elsewhere in the document we talk about 
> "non-emergency calls", which should mean "a call for a non-emergency". 
> The correct opposite to emergency call would be "call that is not 
> related to an emergency".
>
> There are several other "non-" instances in the document that are 
> equally meaningless. I assume "non-realtime xxx" is not intended to 
> mean "unrealtime xxx", but rather, "xxx that is not realtime".
<GH>I think these are sufficiently often used in other RFCs to be 
understood.

Gunnar
>
> Keith
>
> On 22-Nov-17 2:17 AM, Bernard Aboba wrote:
>> Looks good to me.
>>
>> On Tue, Nov 21, 2017 at 3:17 PM, Randall Gellens 
>> <rg+ietf@randy.pensive.org <mailto:rg+ietf@randy.pensive.org>> wrote:
>>
>>     I agree.  I made a few minor editorial changes (e.g., moving some
>>     text to a new paragraph):
>>
>>     5.4.  Usage Notes
>>
>>        A sign language tag with a video media stream is interpreted as an
>>        indication for sign language in the video stream.  A non-sign
>>        language tag with a text media stream is interpreted as an
>>        indication for written language in the text stream.  A non-sign
>>        language tag 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 per BCP 47 [RFC5646], a
>>        language subtag with a Type field "extlang" combined with a Prefix
>>        field value "sgn" indicates a sign language tag.  The absense of
>>        such "sgn" prefix indicates a non-sign language tag.
>>
>>        This document does not define the use of sign language tags in
>>     text
>>        or audio media.
>>
>>        This document does not define the use of language tags in media
>>        other than interactive streams of audio, video, and text (such as
>>        "message" or "application").  Such use could be supported by
>>     future
>>        work or by application agreement.
>>
>>
>>     At 11:50 PM +0100 11/21/17, Gunnar Hellström wrote:
>>
>>          Den 2017-11-21 kl. 23:08, skrev Randall Gellens:
>>
>>              Based on the text and comments from Gunnar, brian, Paul,
>>             and Bernard, here is what I propose to replace section
>>             5.4 with:
>>
>>              5.4. Usage Notes
>>
>>              A sign language tag with a video stream is interpreted as an
>>              indication for sign language in the video stream. A non-sign
>>              language tag with text media is interpreted as an
>>             indication for
>>              written language. A non-sign language tag with audio
>>             media is
>>              interpreted as an indication for spoken language.
>>
>>              In the IANA registry of language subtags per BCP 47
>>             [RFC5646], a
>>              language subtag with a Type field "extlang" combined
>>             with a Prefix
>>              field value "sgn" indicates a sign language tag. The
>>             absense of
>>              such "sgn" prefix indicates a non-sign language tag.
>>             This document
>>              does not define any other use for language tags in video
>>             media
>>              (such as how to indicate visible captions).
>>
>>              This document does not define the use of sign language
>>             tags in text
>>              or audio media.
>>
>>              This document does not define the use of language tags
>>             in media
>>              other than interactive streams of audio, video, and text
>>             (such as
>>              "message" or "application").
>>
>>          <GH> Good, I hope that "non-sign language" can be an
>>         accepted term.
>>          I provide a slightly modified 5.4 proposal, with a bit more
>>         consistent language in the first paragraph, and the
>>         mentioning of further work or application agreement
>>         reinserted. I think that is better than just saying that it
>>         is not defined. I also added the spoken language in video is
>>         a view of a speaker according to recent discussion in another
>>         mail.
>>          I really hope to find that we are converging now.
>>
>>          ------------------------------new text
>>         -------------------------------------------
>>          5.4 Media, Language and Modality indications
>>
>>          A sign language tag with video media is interpreted as an
>>          indication for sign language in the video stream. A non-sign
>>          language tag with text media is interpreted as an indication for
>>          written language. A non-sign language tag with audio media is
>>          interpreted as an indication for spoken language. A non-sign
>>          language tag with video media is interpreted as a view of a
>>          speaking person. 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 per BCP 47 [RFC5646], a
>>          language subtag with a Type field "extlang" combined with a
>>         Prefix
>>          field value "sgn" indicates a sign language tag. The absense of
>>          such "sgn" prefix indicates a non-sign language tag.
>>
>>          This document does not define the use of sign language tags
>>         in text
>>          or audio media. This document does not define the use of
>>         language tags in media
>>          other than interactive streams of audio, video, and text
>>         (such as
>>          "message" or "application"). Such use may be supported by
>>         further work
>>          or application specific agreements.
>>
>>
>>         ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>          Gunnar
>>          --
>>          -----------------------------------------
>>          Gunnar Hellström
>>          Omnitor
>>          <mailto:gunnar.hellstrom@omnitor.se
>>         <mailto:gunnar.hellstrom@omnitor.se>>gunnar.hellstrom@omnitor.se
>>         <mailto:gunnar.hellstrom@omnitor.se>
>>         +46 708 204 288 <tel:%2B46%20708%20204%20288>
>>
>>          _______________________________________________
>>          SLIM mailing list
>>         SLIM@ietf.org <mailto:SLIM@ietf.org>
>>         https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/slim
>>         <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/slim>
>>
>>
>>
>>     -- 
>>     Randall Gellens
>>     Opinions are personal;    facts are suspect;    I speak for
>>     myself only
>>     -------------- Randomly selected tag: ---------------
>>     Never knock the way the other cat swings.
>>                              --Neal Cassady
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> SLIM mailing list
>> SLIM@ietf.org
>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/slim
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> SLIM mailing list
> SLIM@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/slim

-- 
-----------------------------------------
Gunnar Hellström
Omnitor
gunnar.hellstrom@omnitor.se
+46 708 204 288