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

From: Bernard Aboba <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 13 Oct 2017 13:22:22 -0700

Issue 41 (see: 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

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?

---

From: Randall Gellens <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 13 Oct 2017 22:42:04 -0700

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
>
>  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.
>  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.
>  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."
>

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.

---

From: Gunnar Hellström <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 14 Oct 2017 11:09:42 +0200

Den 2017-10-14 kl. 07:42, skrev Randall Gellens:
>>  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:
>>
>> 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.
>>
<GH>Yes, "is not defined in this document" as already introduced in 
draft -15 is good and can be accepted. However, see another proposal I 
just made for issue #43, for replacement of the whole section 5.4  that 
is real guidance for implementations. That also solves this issue #41, 
since it allows new specifications to add usage.

/Gunnar

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