My proposal for a reworded section 5.4 is:
5.4. Unusual language indications
It is possible to specify an unusual indication where the language
specified may look unexpected for the media type.
For such cases the following guidance SHALL be applied for the
humintlang attributes used in these situations.
1. A view of a speaking person in the video stream SHALL, when it has
relevance for speech perception, be indicated by a Language-Tag for
spoken/written language with the "Zxxx" script subtag to indicate
that the contents is not written.
2. Text captions included in the video stream SHALL be indicated by a
Language-Tag for spoken/written language.
3. Any approximate representation of sign language or fingerspelling in
the text media stream SHALL be indicated by a Language-Tag for a
sign language in text media.
4. When sign language related audio from a person using sign language
is of importance for language communication, this SHALL be indicated
by a Language-Tag for a sign language in audio media.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
This paragraph in 5.2 should be deleted because it is a duplication.
" 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."
Regards
Gunnar
Den 2017-02-14 kl. 08:06, skrev Gunnar Hellström:
Doug,
Thanks for pointing at the Zxxx script subtag for non-written content.
I think we can document the use of it for the view of a speaker in
video media when indicated by a spoken/written language tag.
I have tried before to propose to use the script subtag to indicate
written language, but got opposition because many languages have their
main script subtag suppressed. However, the language around suppressed
script subtags indicate that there are cases when the use is
appropriate. We can document that text captions in the video stream
shall (or should) be indicated with a script subtag.
But, to keep it simple, the use of Zxxx scrit subtag on the view of a
speaker should be sufficient.
That could conclude the unusual combinations:
1. Spoken/written tag in video media, can mean to see a speaking
person, or to provide captions overlayed on video.
When the intention is to indicate overlayed captions in the video
stream, the script subtag Zxxx SHALL be used.
Otherwise, a view of a speaking person is indicated.
2. Signed language tag in audio media,
means audio from a person using sign language, and SHOULD only be used
for rare cases when it has some relevance for language communication.
3. Sign language tag in text media.
SHALL be used for any approximate text coded representation of sign
language or fingerspelling.
I suggest that these conclusions form the base for a redefined section
5.4.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
About my efforts to discuss modality in the language list: The list
was closed when I tried to subscribe or send to it, and I did not see
any response on a question I sent about how to get a discussion on the
modality topic.
But I am happy now with your pointing out the Zxxx script. a
spoken/written language with Zxxx script is quite obviously not
written and not signed, so then it is spoken. Good.
Thanks
Gunnar
Den 2017-02-14 kl. 00:10, skrev Doug Ewell:
Gunnar Hellström wrote:
But captions overlayed on video in the media stream is a used
technology so it would be good to be able to specify it.
That we cannot do it is again a sad effect of the language tags not
distinguishing between spoken and written modality.
se-Latn = Swedish written in Latin script
se-Cyrl = Swedish written in Cyrillic script
se-Maya = Swedish written in Mayan hieroglyphs
se-Zxxx = Swedish, explicitly not written
"se-Zxxx, fi-Latn" = content includes non-written Swedish plus Finnish
written in Latin script
Examples of multiple streams of content, such as video in one language
that is subtitled in another, call for multiple language tags. That is
not a shortcoming or failure of the language tag mechanism. See RFC
5646, Section 4.3.
All of this was discussed in the WG by the same parties.
I once had an ambition to try to specify a notation for that to be
added to BCP 47, but did not succeed to get any real discussion going
on the topic.
I searched the ietf-languages archives and did not find any sort of
post
or proposal from you. I forwarded one of your messages from SLIM to that
list in November 2015, expecting you to follow up with a proposal, but
nothing materialized.
--
Doug Ewell | Thornton, CO, US | ewellic.org
_______________________________________________
SLIM mailing list
SLIM(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/slim
--
-----------------------------------------
Gunnar Hellström
Omnitor
gunnar(_dot_)hellstrom(_at_)omnitor(_dot_)se
+46 708 204 288