Re: [Slim] Issue 41: Allow sign languages in the text stream for text notations of sign language

Randall Gellens <rg+ietf@randy.pensive.org> Sat, 14 October 2017 05:42 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 DD2DA13306F for <slim@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 13 Oct 2017 22:42:10 -0700 (PDT)
X-Quarantine-ID: <qxcXY-rTNz8V>
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 qxcXY-rTNz8V for <slim@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 13 Oct 2017 22:42:09 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from turing.pensive.org (turing.pensive.org [99.111.97.161]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7F23B126D0C for <slim@ietf.org>; Fri, 13 Oct 2017 22:42:09 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [172.20.60.54] (99.111.97.161) by turing.pensive.org with ESMTP (EIMS X 3.3.9); Fri, 13 Oct 2017 22:46:14 -0700
Mime-Version: 1.0
Message-Id: <p06240601d60753a3f914@[172.20.60.54]>
In-Reply-To: <CAOW+2dvYsCXY-eSNBm5U5gWhWzc9Q2a_bx+PkA3bG74eBXsQqg@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAOW+2dvYsCXY-eSNBm5U5gWhWzc9Q2a_bx+PkA3bG74eBXsQqg@mail.gmail.com>
X-Mailer: Eudora for Mac OS X
Date: Fri, 13 Oct 2017 22:42:04 -0700
To: Bernard Aboba <bernard.aboba@gmail.com>, slim@ietf.org
From: Randall Gellens <rg+ietf@randy.pensive.org>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format="flowed"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/slim/VpIcDPjU5EWlWcPYMp2vXOkqAK4>
Subject: Re: [Slim] Issue 41: Allow sign languages in the text stream for text notations of sign 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: Sat, 14 Oct 2017 05:42:11 -0000

At 1:22 PM -0700 10/13/17, Bernard Aboba wrote:

>  Issue 41 
> (see: <https://trac.ietf.org/trac/slim/ticket/41>https://trac.ietf.org/trac/slim/ticket/41 
> ) relates to the potential future use of sign language within a 
> text stream, such as Formal Signwriting, described here:
> 
> <https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-slevinski-formal-signwriting>https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-slevinski-formal-signwriting
>
>  In the Issue, the following change is suggested:
>
>  Therefore, I suggest this minimal change:
>  ---------------------------old text 1 in 
> 5.4-------------------------------------
>  the behavior when specifying a spoken/written language tag for a 
> video media stream, or a signed language tag for an audio or text 
> media stream, is not defined.
>  --------------------------new text---------------------------------
>
>  the behavior when specifying a spoken/written language tag for a 
> video media stream, or a signed language tag for an audio media 
> stream, is not defined.
>  --------------------------end of change 1---------------------------
>
>  Since draft-slevinski has not been widely implemented, it probably 
> cannot be assumed that negotiation of a signed language tag for a 
> text media stream implies use of this (or any other) sign language 
> textual encoding mechanism.  So it would not be correct to imply 
> that use of a signed language tag for an text media stream has a 
> well defined meaning.
>
>  One way to resolve this would be to keep the existing text but add 
> a sentence, such as:
>
>  "Note that mechanisms for encoding signed language in a text media 
> stream have been proposed
>  [draft-slevinski] but are not yet well developed enough for 
> incorporation within the negotiation mechanism described in this 
> document."
>
>  Would such a resolution make sense?

How about simply changing "is not defined" to "is not defined in this 
document"?

-- 
Randall Gellens
Opinions are personal;    facts are suspect;    I speak for myself only
-------------- Randomly selected tag: ---------------
Don't worry over what other people are thinking about you.  They're too
busy worrying over what you are thinking about them.