Subject: RE: [Ltru] el truth?

From: "Peter Constable" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 26 Sep 2005 09:26:44 -0700

> From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]] On Behalf
Of r&d afrac
> Sent: Friday, September 23, 2005 12:01 PM

> Offensive? Off-topic?
> It seems you really have a problem with networked language
> understanding and multicultural real world!
> That kind of comment identify the author ....
> Please indicate your langtag for that file.

That file has two streams of linguistic content, each of which could be
tagged: "fr" for one, "en" for the other. The file as a whole contains
content in two languages, and would face no greater issue for tagging
than any other bilingual document. In principle, a server might be able
to return this content in response to a request for either "en" or "fr".
If a user wishes to request specifically *audio* that is in French, then
the protocol for content negotiation would need to distinguish between
modalities for which linguistic attributes are specified.

There is no difficulty whatsoever creating language tags appropriate for
this file. The only issues have to do with the metadata categories used
for content in a given application context and negotiation mechanisms
that make reference to those categories -- all of which is beyond the
scope of the current projects of this WG.

Peter Constable

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

---

From: r&d afrac <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 26 Sep 2005 19:51:18 +0200

Dear Peter,
thank you for your ... lack of response:

>scope of the current projects of this WG.

please be _specific_.

There is a file. There is a tagging to associate. This file is signed 
by a French prestigious language school and has be prepared by 
students from the quoted countries, let assume it is intended for 
their fellow students.

What IS the full tagging to associate to this file?

This file is touring the world right now as people love it. This is a 
unique occasion to clarify your proposition: I will give your tagging 
and ours so people can understand the difference (our will probably 
be didactic and something like 0-langroot.org:fraparfun, once the 
site has started - but the DRS will take time to be specified and deploy).
jfc

---

From: "Randy Presuhn" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 26 Sep 2005 13:05:00 -0700

Hi Jefsey -

The ltru working group already reached a consensus on issue #1127,
on the tagging of multilingual content.  Peter is correct that negotiation
mechanisms are beyond the scope of this working group, as are the
choices made by specific protocols or file formats for the association
of language tags with content.

>From an off-list discussion, I know that you've already been given an
example of how one protocol would tag that video.  Martin wrote in
response to your off-list question:

| Even more, some protocols (such as HTTP used to serve the
| video in question) can easily carry more than one language.
| In the specific case in question, it could have come
| served with
|
| Content-Type: video/mpeg
| Content-Language: fr, en

Rehashing a closed issue, particularly on a document which has already
finished IETF last call, without the introduction of substantively new
rationale or operational experience, is, in the judgment of this co-chair,
disruptive behaviour per RFC 3934.  Such behaviour wastes the working
group's time, which would be better spent on completing the matching
draft.

If you persist in this or other disruptive behaviour on the ltru working group
mailing list, your posting privileges to [email-masked] will be suspended for
a period of 30 days.

Randy, ltru co-chair

> From: "r&d afrac" <[email-masked]>
> To: "Peter Constable" <[email-masked]>; "LTRU Working Group" <[email-masked]>
> Sent: Monday, September 26, 2005 10:51 AM
> Subject: RE: [Ltru] el truth?
>
> Dear Peter,

---

From: r&d afrac <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 27 Sep 2005 01:00:53 +0200

At 22:05 26/09/2005, Randy Presuhn wrote:
>Hi Jefsey -
>Peter is correct that negotiation mechanisms are beyond the scope of 
>this working group,

Thank you for saying it. Full support.
jfc

At 18:08 27/08/2005, Addison Phillips wrote:
>No, this is called "language negotiation according to user 
>preferences". It is what the "q" weights in Accept-Language are for, 
>for example.
>
>There are some different examples of how this could be useful.
>
>Case #1: Consider a user who speaks both Slovenian and Italian who 
>subscribes to an RSS news feed. RSS indicates the language of an 
>article using a language tag. If the user instructs her newsreader 
>to filter the articles in the news feed, she might use this 
>Accept-Language setting:
>
>sl;q=1.0,it;q=0.8,sl-rozaj;q=0.0
>
>The lowest distance metric value for each article (when comparing to 
>each range in succession) is the weight for the article as a whole. 
>That weight can be divided by the q weight associated with that 
>range to produce the "final score". When the articles are ordered by 
>score, this produces a list in which Slovenian articles always 
>appear before Italian articles on each "level" of matching, but in 
>which articles in the Resian dialect ("sl-rozaj") never appear 
>(score is "infinity" essentially, since divide by zero is an error) 
>or at least appear at the very end.
>
>Case #2: Consider a news feed from Japan. A friend tells me that an 
>interesting English language article appeared in this particular 
>news feed, but can't remember exactly when or what it was called. I 
>can set "ja;q=0.0" to filter out all the Japanese (presumably the 
>majority of the news feed), making the article easier to find.
>
>Addison
>
>Addison P. Phillips
>Globalization Architect, Quest Software
>Chair, W3C Internationalization Core Working Group
>
>Internationalization is not a feature.
>It is an architecture.

---

From: "Randy Presuhn" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 26 Sep 2005 19:45:45 -0700

Hi -

> To: "Randy Presuhn" <[email-masked]>; "LTRU Working Group" <[email-masked]>
> Cc: "Scott Hollenbeck" <[email-masked]>
> Sent: Monday, September 26, 2005 4:00 PM
> Subject: Re: [Ltru] Public RFC 3934 warning to Jefsey
>

Why the quote from Addison?  He wasn't writing about negotiation
mechanisms.  He was explaining why a particular type of matching
algorithm is useful in support of negotiation mechanisms.  Providing
use cases for matching algorithms (clearly within our scope) is quite
a different matter from specifying negotiation mechanisms.

If I were feeling less charitable, I'd cite this as yet another case of
misrepresenting WG members' positions.

> >There are some different examples of how this could be useful.
...

Randy, ltru co-chair

---

From: r&d afrac <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 27 Sep 2005 06:05:36 +0200

>misrepresenting WG members' positions.

Dear Chair,
If I were feeling less charitable, I'd cite this as yet another case 
of misrepresenting a WG member's posts... Providing
use cases for matching algorithms (clearly within our scope) is what 
is my example about.
Do take care 8-)
jfc