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

From: "Peter Constable" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 27 Sep 2005 06:26:29 -0700

> From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]] On Behalf
Of
> Harald Tveit Alvestrand

> Don't standardize private-use codes - not even in an "industry-wide
> agreement". It hurts.
> 
> i-silent is no longer available for public registration, methinks.
> 
> und-silent would be a valid code, if "silent" is registered as a
variant
> subtag with "und" as its prefix.

Harald's concern is valid.

I have suggested to the ISO 639 JAC that a special-purpose ID be added
for "no linguistic content", which would suffice for what MPAA needs. 

("Language of audio track = no linguistic content" could imply a film
with audio but no narration or dialogue, which isn't strictly silent,
but for a "language of audio track" attribute it would be appropriate to
indicate no linguistic content but not to indicate that there's no audio
track whatsoever.)

Peter Constable

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

---

From: "Peter Constable" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 27 Sep 2005 12:23:44 -0700

> From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]] On Behalf
Of r&d afrac

> > > 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.
> 
> I would like this to be formally confirmed by a real consensus of the
> WG and an addition to the document.

I don't get this. Nobody else seems to have difficulty understanding
what "private use" means and the implications of private use tags, such
as that a meaning won't be specified in an RFC but that anybody outside
of IETF can choose to do what they want with private-use tags in their
implementation of RFC 3066(bis).

That plus the fact that the WG and IETF last calls are over makes me
inclined to say we should not take any particular action related to this
request.

> > > 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.
> 
> That "qaa ... qtz" are for private use is OK. But:
> 1. I do not see where "qsi" is specifically documented as "silent"

One industry application of RFC 3066 was planning to use the private-use
tag "qsi" to indicate movies that are "silent". If you want to find that
documented, you'll need to consult *that* spec. Neither IETF nor IANA
nor ISO document "qsi" as meaning "silent".

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

Language tags defined by RFC 3066(bis) are intended to indicate
linguistic attributes of content; attributes such as typography,
emotional stance or other attributes of speakers/authors, etc. are
entirely out of scope. There may be valid reasons to indicate such
things as metadata attributes on content, but the tags defined by this
spec are not the appropriate mechanism for that.

Peter Constable