Subject: RE: [Ltru] Re: Suppress-Script batch 1

From: "McDonald, Ira" <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 30 Sep 2006 11:28:13 -0700

Hi,

"Preferably" and other circumlocutions have no business
appearing in an Internet standard.  Wherever possible,
"MUST" should be used.  Only when there's a compelling
reason, "SHOULD" should be used.  Otherwise, silence on
an entire topic is more informative.

It seems odd to me that people are so reluctant to get
serious about "MUST NOT" where script is redundant (the
predominant script) or unsuitable (non-written content).

Language tags have been successfully used for a great
many purposes for more than a decade entirely without
script subtags.

Cheers,
- Ira

Ira McDonald (Musician / Software Architect)
Blue Roof Music / High North Inc
PO Box 221  Grand Marais, MI  49839
phone: +1-906-494-2434
email: [email-masked] 
-----Original Message-----
From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]]
Sent: Saturday, September 30, 2006 2:13 PM
To: Martin Duerst
Cc: Doug Ewell; LTRU Working Group
Subject: Re: [Ltru] Re: Suppress-Script batch 1

I like the "maybe even better" option the best. But again, the "preferably"
irks me a bit. Is there any case where it is appropriate to use a script
with spoken language? 

Regards, 

Karen Broome
Metadata Systems Designer
Sony Pictures Entertainment

Martin Duerst <[email-masked]> 
09/30/2006 12:41 AM To"Mark Davis" <[email-masked]>,
"[email-masked]" <[email-masked]> 
ccDoug Ewell <[email-masked]>, LTRU Working Group <[email-masked]> 
SubjectRe: [Ltru] Re: Suppress-Script batch 1

Just a very small editorial fix, otherwise +1:

At 10:02 06/09/30, Mark Davis wrote:
>I'm mostly in agreement with the changes, but the following goes too far:
>
>   6.  Script subtags MUST NOT be used to identify language that is spoken
or sung. Script                   tags and Suppress-Script fields are not
applicable to such content.

>If you change that to the following, it would be better.
>
>Script subtags not applicable to language that that is not written in
characters (for example, spoken or sung). Language tags used to identify
such content should not contain script tags.

Please change:
  Script subtags not applicable to language that that is not written
  in characters (for example, spoken or sung).
to:
  Script subtags are not applicable to language that that is not
  written in characters (for example, spoken or sung).

Maybe even better:
  Script subtags are not applicable, and therefore preferably are left out,
  for content that does not use any script, for example because it is
  spoken or sung.

This does two things:
- Says explicitly that if a script tag isn't applicable, don't use it in
 the tag.
- Makes the text somewhat more independent of the description of 'script'.
 (As an example, if ever we would get into the situation that sign language
 is recognized as a 'script', but there are not characters for it.)
 Not a main point, but just to be on the safe side.

Regards,    Martin.

#-#-#  Martin J. Du"rst, Assoc. Professor, Aoyama Gakuin University
#-#-#  http://www.sw.it.aoyama.ac.jp       mailto:[email-masked]

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

-- 
No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Version: 7.1.407 / Virus Database: 268.12.10/459 - Release Date: 9/29/2006

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

---

From: "Mark Davis" <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 30 Sep 2006 12:49:55 -0700

> Otherwise, silence on an entire topic is more informative.

Your statement is very difficult to understand. There are many many
statements in RFCs that don't contain or contribute to a (MUST|SHOULD)
[NOT]. Otherwise the RFC as a whole be impossible to read and apply
effectively. There is a place for informative discourse in standards, and
there is a place for recommendations that are guidance, but are not as
strong as a SHOULD.

If there had not been good reason for introducing the many features of 4646
that were not in 3066, including scripts, we wouldn't have done it.
Rereading some of the material on Addison's website would be useful about
the reasons may be useful for you.

Look, we all agree that it is not very useful to tag anything with
fr-Latn-AQ or en-Hira-BV. Our goal is to specify what those tags would mean,
so that they can be correctly interpreted if they are received, and and give
general guidance as to when particular combinations should only be used in
specialized contexts. Beyond that, it's pointless.

Let's not make up problems where they don't exist. I see no groundswell, nor
any realistic prospect of a groundswell, of people tagging languages with
unnecessary scripts. I didn't oppose Suppress-Script because it is basically
harmless, even though in practice it is of very little real use. But if it
becomes a maintenence nightmare tagging 7000-odd scripts with correct values
in the absence of good data, it is no longer harmless.

Now, this is all getting away from Karen's quite reasonable desire to
provide people more clarity on the fact that for material that is only
non-written it isn't a good idea to include a script subtag. I could even
see, in some applications, tagging records with, for example, zh-Zxxx,
meaning unwritten Chinese. Then I could search records for zh (meaning any zh,
no matter whether spoken, or written in traditional, or written in
simplified, or written in pinyin), or filter that to only non-written, or
only simplified, or only romanized.

Mark

---

From: [email-masked]
Date: Sat, 30 Sep 2006 20:07:24 -0700

"Mark Davis" <[email-masked]> wrote on 09/30/2006 12:49:55 PM:

> 
> Let's not make up problems where they don't exist. I see no 
> groundswell, nor any realistic prospect of a groundswell, of people 
> tagging languages with unnecessary scripts. 

However, when it comes to tagging audiovisual content, I do see this quite 
frequently -- at least with Chinese language classification. (And I've 
analyzed audiovisual language data from many sources and studios.) The 
fault is not always an ill-informed classifier. Developers often advise 
against having separate or filtered language lists for spoken and written 
languages as they want to be able to do a basic query for all content in 
Mandarin or "Chinese" and don't quite understand the issue. "ISO doesn't 
make this distinction, why should we?"

Or classifiers are stuck with a shrink-wrapped system architecture that 
assumes written content and a single language list. So when a classifier 
is faced with inappropriate choices for a dubbed or spoken work, they 
often choose a "scripted" form of Mandarin over suggesting a system 
redesign. It's not the role of the working group to design systems, but 
maybe giving this issue some attention might help developers who implement 
RFC 4646bis in systems that deal with both spoken and written language. 

Regards,

Karen Broome