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

Randall Gellens <rg+ietf@randy.pensive.org> Mon, 20 November 2017 18:14 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 DE9F212E037 for <slim@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 20 Nov 2017 10:14:35 -0800 (PST)
X-Quarantine-ID: <HBSuxEhMTGH6>
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 HBSuxEhMTGH6 for <slim@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 20 Nov 2017 10:14:34 -0800 (PST)
Received: from turing.pensive.org (turing.pensive.org [99.111.97.161]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 04FBF129572 for <slim@ietf.org>; Mon, 20 Nov 2017 10:14:34 -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 10:14:39 -0800
Mime-Version: 1.0
Message-Id: <p06240601d638cb74f228@[99.111.97.136]>
In-Reply-To: <97d9a6b8-de3b-9f79-483b-18376fcf0ced@omnitor.se>
References: <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>
X-Mailer: Eudora for Mac OS X
Date: Mon, 20 Nov 2017 10:14:29 -0800
To: Gunnar =?iso-8859-1?Q?Hellstr=F6m?= <gunnar.hellstrom@omnitor.se>, 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="iso-8859-1" ; format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/slim/UDP9qhc8y69BlR6zFlE2J75uG3M>
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 18:14:36 -0000

At 6:25 PM +0100 11/20/17, Gunnar Hellström wrote:

>  It is not the signed languages that are causing 
> the problem. It is the spoken and written, when 
> used in other media than the obvious audio and 
> text media.

I am not convinced that this is a problem that 
the draft needs to have text for.  As Bernard 
noted in an earlier email, it doesn't really 
matter if the draft attempts to limit what can be 
done.

Let's delete section 5.4, close issue #43, and advance the draft.

--Randall

>
>  And we should specify what is obvious and well 
> defined and not, so here is a new shorter 
> proposal for section 5.4.
>
>  -----Old text----
>
>  5.4 Undefined Combinations
>
>
>
>     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.
>   -----New text------------
>  5.4 Media, Language and Modality indications
>
>  The combination of Language tags and other 
> information in the media descriptions should be 
> composed so that the intended modality can be 
> concluded by the negotiating parties. The 
> following combinations of language tags and 
> media provide obvious information about the 
> modality: sign language tags in video media 
> indicate signed modality, spoken language tags 
> for audio media indicate spoken modality and 
> written language tags for text media indicate 
> written modality. The examples in this 
> specification are all from this set of three 
> obvious language/media/modality combinations.
>
>  A sign language can be identified by the 
> existence in the IANA registry of language 
> subtags according to BCP 47 [RFC5646] of the 
> language subtag with the Type field "extlang" 
> combined with the Prefix field value "sgn".
>  A specific spoken or written language can be 
> identified by not having any such "sgn" Prefix.
>
>  Use of language may appear in other media, such 
> as "message" and "application". Video media may 
> be used for other modalities than signed. Such 
> use may be supported by further work or 
> application specific agreements or indications 
> for evaluation of the intended modality.
>
> 
> -------------------------------------------------------------------End 
> of new 
> text---------------------------------------
>
>  Den 2017-11-20 kl. 15:55, skrev Randall Gellens:
>
>>  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><mailto:rg+ietf@randy.pensive.org><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.
>>>
>>
>>
>
>  --
>  -----------------------------------------
>  Gunnar Hellström
>  Omnitor
>  <mailto:gunnar.hellstrom@omnitor.se>gunnar.hellstrom@omnitor.se
>  +46 708 204 288


-- 
Randall Gellens
Opinions are personal;    facts are suspect;    I speak for myself only
-------------- Randomly selected tag: ---------------
As far as the laws of mathematics refer to reality, they are not
certain; and as far as they are certain, they do not refer to reality.
                                                    --Albert Einstein