Subject: Re: [Slim] Coding for the use cases in draft-ietf-slim-negotiating-human-language

From: "Doug Ewell" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 23 May 2016 15:00:11 -0700

Gunnar Hellström wrote:

> RFC 5646 has a weakness in that it does not differ between spoken and
> written language in the tags,

Nope. It was a conscious decision in the development of RFC 5646 (and
4646 before it) not to treat modality as an attribute of language. We
had a hard enough time getting people to accept script subtags.

--
Doug Ewell | http://ewellic.org | Thornton, CO 🇺🇸

---

From: Gunnar Hellström <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 24 May 2016 07:34:00 +0200

> had a hard enough time getting people to accept script subtags.
Right. I could have expressed it in another way.
We could have had this effort to create modality-tags ( spoken, signed 
and written ) and direction-tags ( send and receive ) and ways to 
combine them with the existing language tags and media tags to form a 
way to express preferences and capabilities for human communication.

But we did not do that complementing high level work. We instead borrow 
the sdp structure to get a linkage between language and the modality. 
One reason is that the result need identified media streams, so by 
having the negotiation linked to media streams we do not have any 
problems knowing where to send or receive the language.

Sadly, this makes our work limited to traditional SIP, and only where 
all media is communicated in media streams carrying their original MIME 
type names audio, video and text. We should right now start working on 
next case, where this model does not fit. That is webrtc, where only 
audio and video have their right names, and text is embedded in a data 
channel. It is out of scope for the current work, but a task to do.

/Gunnar

-- 
-----------------------------------------
Gunnar Hellström
Omnitor
[email-masked]
+46 708 204 288