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

[Gunnar Hellström <[e-mail]>]

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.

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:[e-mail]>[e-mail]> 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
[e-mail]
[phone]