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

Paul Kyzivat <> Mon, 20 November 2017 18:53 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id F1E3612E872 for <>; Mon, 20 Nov 2017 10:53:49 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.7
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.7 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key)
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id a45fsgRcllnO for <>; Mon, 20 Nov 2017 10:53:48 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( [IPv6:2001:558:fe21:29:69:252:207:42]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id D203B12E870 for <>; Mon, 20 Nov 2017 10:53:48 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ([]) by with ESMTP id GrBkeRivWpy9YGrCWeeMTL; Mon, 20 Nov 2017 18:53:48 +0000
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=q20161114; t=1511204028; bh=8emPSY6y+6zGejw6s/iS5pzP6etpHfxo++GJNltPDK8=; h=Received:Received:Subject:To:From:Message-ID:Date:MIME-Version: Content-Type; b=g+TRnANckRxa6oHrZb7KCtQa10dQSLzhN8ef1V0aqT04ze7FM2oJjtx2y3XPhVMKh eFRBSqUSmVdP+e0Wu6QHIoMaHQ5/tWjMtieFFo9WaCWAw4W3Qi2g14wscjjo2qunGw BPAjZUP4IHAsq8vhqms7fAXq/HzhZCSPRlJXLgoc1dK2bsU+GsMu0v9C0w3APDeEjO T9BoRkeLwDchV5GL3IvoovWzF8Wp5IgxML6ze+qwDjRoKTZ54Zk4UrstHdkhO1JXKJ qqmrSwp2VGz3gM2ltRkFwpe1cWmhvFWB1U72iN0UirF1/H09XjoEmW0C3xi2WBNxyT 1yILKQOkcIWGg==
Received: from PaulKyzivatsMBP.localdomain ([]) by with SMTP id GrCVerWkT5Ls1GrCVepFKT; Mon, 20 Nov 2017 18:53:47 +0000
References: <> <p06240600d637c6f98ecc@> <> <p06240600d6389cd2043f@> <> <>
From: Paul Kyzivat <>
Message-ID: <>
Date: Mon, 20 Nov 2017 13:53:46 -0500
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.10; 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-Language: en-US
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
X-CMAE-Envelope: MS4wfLE1EVKeuloBh19+Bdmf3/3K7hOBP/3bWesEVMDQH0Ge4mUO3EJrWX99Y2MZrGKQxmk8p4wCLfL8ZfUasYdTa9UgCUnwY4k7Iovn6pGVdEDgFFtmql26 QZgDq5Pv4XiZEkbCtJa4GPhBjAQEn7DqcMenzys7Qodncs/MIhPpwUOHy16rvtY8+dyIUa5VZPZDnQ==
Archived-At: <>
Subject: Re: [Slim] Moving forward on draft-ietf-slim-negotiating-human-language
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: Mon, 20 Nov 2017 18:53:50 -0000

On 11/20/17 1:41 PM, Bernard Aboba wrote:

> [BA]  This is where the ground gets less solid - we don't really have a 
> general mechanism for distinguishing spoken and written modality among 
> non-signed languages. Perhaps we should just say "language tags in audio 
> media indicate spoken modality and language tags in text media indicate 
> written modality".

ISTM the real problem is with language tags in video media. These could 
indicate that the lip motions of people in the video reflect speakers of 
the tagged language. Or they could indicate written text in the 
specified language is embedded in the video. (Could be closed caption 
text or just signage.) Or (in the case of signed language tags) it could 
indicate use of sign language in the video.

But in the end, if this is declarative about what is being sent then it 
isn't clear whether it is important. If it is an indication of what is 
being requested, then it is more important.