Subject: RE: [Ltru] [psg.com #1033] Written Spoken Signed

From: "Peter Constable" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 13 Jun 2005 00:05:33 -0700

> This has been assigned issue number [psg.com #1033]
> 
> > From: "Debbie Garside" <[email-masked]>
> > To: <[email-masked]>
> > Sent: Saturday, June 11, 2005 6:16 PM
> > Subject: [Ltru] Written Spoken Signed
> ...
> > An issue has been raised on the IETF with regard to the principle of
> > language tags for written, spoken (and signed) to be registered
> distinctly
> > as opposed to an "umbrella" tag that was perhaps designed initially
for
> > written but is now being used to cover all.
> >
> > As the draft for ISO 639-6 currently supports separate tags for
these -
> > language, written_language, spoken_language, signed_language -
perhaps
> it
> > would be prudent to incorporate some text and a mechanism within
3066bis
> to
> > support the registering of such specific tags.
> >
> > Personally, I believe that in the future there will be a real need
for
> > differentiating between them; it can only enhance archival and
retrieval
> > processes.

First, some clarification regarding signed modality.

Signed languages are distinct languages; as such, they should have their
own lang subtag, and indeed ISO 639-3 assigns such. American Sign
Language is not English expressed using signs rather than voice; hence,
a tag for "American Sign Language" could (and, IMO, should) take the
same syntactic form as tags such as "en" or "fil".

There is such a thing as a verbal language expressed using signs; e.g.
signed English. There may well be a need to have a tag to make this
distinction. I think a variant subtag for this purpose would be
satisfactory; e.g. "en-signed".

Now, re written vs. spoken language:

There can be varietal linguistic distinctions -- dialect -- between
written versus spoken forms of a language, and some user may have a need
for tags to reflect such a distinction. What must be understood is that
this such a distinction between linguistic varieties is orthogonal to
the mode of expression: verbal versus writing. Again, for the linguistic
distinction, variant subtags are a reasonable and appropriate. For the
distinction between modes of expression, Mark has pointed out that
"Zxxx" can be used as a script subtag to indicate that the information
is unwritten (hence assumed to be verbal).

The fact that the draft for 639-6 supports separate tags for language,
written_language, spoken_language, signed_language does not have any
signification implications for 3066bis, IMO: we are not designing
mechanisms to support 639-6 at this time, and the mechanisms in the I-D
are already capable of dealing with all such distinctions. Therefore, I
recommend that item #1033 be closed.

Peter Constable

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

---

From: "Mark Davis" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 13 Jun 2005 14:33:31 -0700

>Therefore, I

Strongly agreed.

‎Mark

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Peter Constable" <[email-masked]>
To: <[email-masked]>
Sent: Monday, June 13, 2005 00:05
Subject: RE: [Ltru] [psg.com #1033] Written Spoken Signed

for
these -
perhaps
3066bis
for
retrieval

Peter Constable

---

From: Martin Duerst <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 14 Jun 2005 09:27:19 +0900

>recommend that item #1033 be closed.

On top of that, please note that while we would need new headers
for scripts (e.g. Accept-Script:), it's easy to indicate whether
you want something spoken or something written:

For written text, something like
      Accept: text/*, application/pdf, application/xml
will do, whereas for spoken stuff,
      Accept: audio/*
or so will do the job.

Regards,   Martin.