Subject: [Ltru] Tagging of silent films (was: Re: el truth?)

From: "Doug Ewell" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 26 Sep 2005 21:58:49 -0700

Karen Broome <Karen underscore Broome at spe dot sony dot com> wrote:

> Some films are also in multiple languages in their original versions.

"The Red Violin" (1999) leaps to mind, with spoken content in de, en,
fr, it, and zh-cmn.

> We also allow for the "spoken" language "silent" to be combined with a
> text language of, say, French for title cards in silent films. (We are
> implementing an industry-specific custom tag, xsi, for now and are
> working with the MPA to standardize on that within the industry.)

As John indicated, "xsi" is not available for private assignment, and in
fact is allocated to a "real" language in ISO/DIS 639-3.  John's
suggestion of "x-silent" would work fine; so would "qsi".  In either
case, a private (industry-specific) agreement on the meaning of the tag
would be in place, so this is an appropriate use case for private-use
tagging.

--
Doug Ewell
Fullerton, California
http://users.adelphia.net/~dewell/

_______________________________________________
Ltru mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ltru

---

From: r&d afrac <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 27 Sep 2005 13:17:18 +0200

At 06:58 27/09/2005, Doug Ewell wrote:
>John's suggestion of "x-silent" would work fine; so would "qsi".

Is this a consensus of this WG that the RFC 3066 bis is to be read in 
the following way:

1. "x-silent" can be specified in a public standard?
2. "qsi" should be used: then please give some URL documenting where 
"qsi" comes from.
3. "silent" is a modal indication: are other modal indications to be 
given through languages tags? Where is their list?

Or do I read this thread wrong?
jfc

---

From: Frank Ellermann <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 27 Sep 2005 14:25:50 +0200

> 1. "x-silent" can be specified in a public standard?

Not in a valid RfC, x-whatever is for private use.  But
an organization like Afrac or Unicode could define some
meaning for its own private uses - as the name says.

> 2. "qsi" should be used: then please give some URL
> documenting where "qsi" comes from.

|  Type: language
|  Subtag: qaa..qtz
|  Description: PRIVATE USE
|  Added: 2005-09-24

Found in draft-ietf-ltru-initial-05.  For details why
qsi belongs to qaa..qtz see draft-ietf-ltru-registry-13.

qaa..qtz are reserved for local use in ISO 639-2, see
http://www.loc.gov/standards/iso639-2/langcodes.html#qr

http://www.loc.gov/standards/iso639-2/codechanges.html
says that is no new feature, RfC 3066 makes no exception
for qaa..qtz, so qsi is already free for private use.

That won't change with 3066bis - unlike private use
region codes, 3066 didn't allow that in language tags.

> 3. "silent" is a modal indication: are other modal
> indications to be given through languages tags?

At the moment the complete list of registered variants
at date-B will be 1901, 1996, nedis, and rozaj.  After
date-B more variants can be registered.

> Where is their list?

The list is on page 102 of draft-ietf-ltru-initial-05

> Or do I read this thread wrong?

Difficult to guess.  Harald's idea und-silent could make
sense.  Or before date-B i-silent could in theory still
be registered as defined in RfC 3066 chapter 3.

                         Bye, Frank

---

From: r&d afrac <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 27 Sep 2005 15:12:17 +0200

>meaning for its own private uses - as the name says.

I would like this to be formally confirmed by a real consensus of the 
WG and an addition to the document. This is not what Lee has 
documented  against me, and I think he is right. Afrac or Unicode 
could define such a meaning for private use, meaning in a private 
space of exchanges. Not in a public one (space of exchanges, trust 
and services [SETS] being a notion Intlnet/AFRAC is preparing a draft 
about, but which seems easily understandable in the current state of 
the art: intranet, VPN, etc. as opposed to the shared usage of the 
common global Internet resources). I am not at my desk, and I have no 
access to archives, but I think I recall Lee gave a good description 
by analogy.

Otherwise we are going to have an "x-tag" confusion. I do not object 
on the principle as I find the ABNF absurd here and proposed an IESG 
LC addition as "0- + IRI-tag ABNF". But I oppose the confusion: the 
"x-" usage MUST be clear and respect RFC 3066 bis. If this is not 
clear I think it is clear common interest to be very precise. All the 
constraints imposed via the ABNF would be wasted otherwise.

>qsi belongs to qaa..qtz see draft-ietf-ltru-registry-13.

That "qaa ... qtz" are for private use is OK. But:
1. I do not see where "qsi" is specifically documented as "silent"
2. I do not see the difference between ISO 639-3 private use and RFC 
3066 bis private use? Is it on purpose that "PRIVATE USE" was 
retained while a normal (RFC 1958) Internet standard practice would 
call for "private use"?

If there is one (I have not my ISO 639-3 draft with me, but I find 
none in RFC 639-4 draft), it should be spelled out in the document 
(may be in the paragraph proposed above?).

>for qaa..qtz, so qsi is already free for private use.

Yes. But here "qsi" comes as it was already specified as to be used 
instead as to be free?

>date-B more variants can be registered.

You talk of language variants. I talk of mode (silence, smile, fount, 
loudness, sex, age, italic, etc.)

>The list is on page 102 of draft-ietf-ltru-initial-05

cf. above.

>be registered as defined in RfC 3066 chapter 3.

No. I gave an example yesterday: a rebus. This is silent and is 
related to a language. IMHO scripts are modes and the appropriate way 
would be  (in RFC 3066 bis wording) script = oral-silent. But if I am 
correct the ABNF would have difficulties supporting script variants 
(or am I wrong?).

Thanks. JFC

---

From: "Randy Presuhn" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 27 Sep 2005 13:51:17 -0700

Hi -

The only document to which this working group can currently add anything
is the i-d on matching.  The registry-related drafts have completed IETF
last call.  If there is a need for an IETF specification on this subject of
tagging of silent films, and if folks want to do it in this working group,
we can discuss that as part of the discussion of whether there is any
need for the working group to re-charter after completing its current
deliverables, to wit, the matching draft.

Randy, ltru co-chair

> From: "r&d afrac" <[email-masked]>
> To: "Frank Ellermann" <[email-masked]>; <[email-masked]>
> Sent: Tuesday, September 27, 2005 6:12 AM
> Subject: Re: [Ltru] Re: Tagging of silent films (was: Re: el truth?)
>

---

From: r&d afrac <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 28 Sep 2005 00:46:07 +0200

>deliverables, to wit, the matching draft.

Cannot it be the result of a DISCUSS?
I may be wrong, but from the debate it seems we have a lack of 
clarity concerning the "private use" possibilities between mentors of 
this WG (I agree with the "qsi" comment given by Harald).

All this is just the result of one single example I gave. There could 
be others. This only demonstrates my position: the RFC 3066 bis is 
now an improved acceptable document which can be used as a default in 
cases like e-commerce (which is a substantial need) and can be kept 
compatible with all the other cases through "0-U/IRI-tags" which 
address (IMHO) most of the points risen here.

Dont you think it is better to accept a simple half additional line 
and permit to address all these tricky cases one shot (in just 
permitting to indicate the private space of exchange where the added 
information applies) rather than in re-chartering, wasting months, 
etc. to universally address a limited number of local cases. Will 
this will never end? Or is there a major reason I do not understand 
demanding it.
jfc