Subject: [Slim] draft-ietf-slim-negotiating-human-language-13: Status of Issue 41?

From: Bernard Aboba <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 26 Jul 2017 16:54:34 -0700

The Issue tracker indicates that Issue 41 (Allow sign languages in the text
stream for text notations of sign language) is still open:
https://trac.ietf.org/trac/slim/ticket/41

However, there was some discussion on this Issue that points to a potential
resolution:
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/slim/ppql0tolo3SCphsitXa98Ppmc7w

Is Issue 41 still open?

---

From: Gunnar Hellström <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 27 Jul 2017 12:07:35 +0200

I recommend to make the change declared as change 1 in the ticket.

I notice that the sentence has the expression "spoken/written language 
tag". I remember Addison did not like our use of that term in another 
place. Maybe we need to modify it here also.

Gunnar

Den 2017-07-27 kl. 01:54, skrev Bernard Aboba:
> _______________________________________________
> SLIM mailing list
> [email-masked]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/slim

-- 
-----------------------------------------
Gunnar Hellström
Omnitor
[email-masked]
+46 708 204 288

---

From: Randall Gellens <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 28 Jul 2017 10:41:06 -0700

At 4:54 PM -0700 7/26/17, Bernard Aboba wrote:

>  The Issue tracker indicates that Issue 41 (Allow sign languages in 
> the text stream for text notations of sign language) is still open:
> 
> <https://trac.ietf.org/trac/slim/ticket/41>https://trac.ietf.org/trac/slim/ticket/41
>
>
>  However, there was some discussion on this Issue that points to a 
> potential resolution:
> 
> <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/slim/ppql0tolo3SCphsitXa98Ppmc7w>https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/slim/ppql0tolo3SCphsitXa98Ppmc7w
>
>
>  Is Issue 41 still open?

My understanding is that there was email discussion with no consensus 
to change the text, which states:

5.4.  Undefined Combinations

    With the exception of the case mentioned in Section 5.2 (a spoken
    language tag for a video stream in parallel with an audio stream with
    the same spoken language tag), 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.

I do not think there is a compelling reason to change the text. 
Leaving such combinations as undefined allows them to be specified in 
the future, if such use becomes clear.

-- 
Randall Gellens
Opinions are personal;    facts are suspect;    I speak for myself only
-------------- Randomly selected tag: ---------------
We don't see things as they are; we see things as we are.
                                            --Anais Nin

---

From: Gunnar Hellström <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 28 Jul 2017 23:30:08 +0200

> the future, if such use becomes clear.
<GH>But why would we undefine a usage that we know is defined? I propose 
to delete the words "or text" on the last line of 5.4.

However, this interacts with one of the solution options for an issue I 
brought up today under subject "[Slim] How to know modality in 
draft-ietf-slim-negotiating-human-language". I said that we could return 
to just defining one modality per media type. Coordinated decisions are 
needed on these issues.

/Gunnar