Message-Id: <6.1.2.0.2.20050401104829.042ec010@mail.jefsey.com>
Date: Fri, 01 Apr 2005 13:40:44 +0200
To: "M.T. Carrasco Benitez" <mtcarrascob@yahoo.com>, ltru@ietf.org
From: "JFC (Jefsey) Morfin" <jefsey@jefsey.com>
Subject: Re: [Ltru] Re: Language transformation
In-Reply-To: <20050331221215.3408.qmail@web42003.mail.yahoo.com>
References: <20050331221215.3408.qmail@web42003.mail.yahoo.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed
Cc: ltru@ietf.org
Precedence: list
Sender: ltru-bounces@lists.ietf.org
Errors-To: ltru-bounces@lists.ietf.org

At 00:12 01/04/2005, M.T. Carrasco Benitez wrote:
>--- "JFC (Jefsey) Morfin" <jefsey@jefsey.com> wrote:
> > What should be considered is the result to the user.
>
>Yes. This is the point.
>
> > A recording or a
> > transcoding resulting in the same voice-text, look the same to me? I do 
> not
> > see script difference between a voice, in Russian and a voice in English
> > speaking the same way? Questions can be about the sex, accent, timber, age
> > of the voice and about the speaking style? Same a short-hand or 
> phonetic or
> > icons or music or menu figures (as long as there is a common understanding
> > of what means what - what is a script?)
> >
> > Describing the process would be like documenting the version of Apache
> > being used to show an HTML page?
>
>There is real need for tagging transliterations and the requirements are as
>discussed before.

I accept that there might be a need. I accept the requirements are along 
the line you discussed. But I would need to understand what is the need. 
The way to address a need should start from the description of the need, 
not from a partial way to address it.


>Some of your comments above might well fall in a similar model to
>transliteration; so any volunteer ? Other comments looks more like metadata,
>though the language is also metadata.

True. IMHO we have two possibilities:
- either to define them all and we will take a huge amount of time for 
nothing, as you say elsewhere the users communities will decide.
- or we structure an open concept able to support several semantic and 
syntaxes and any user/standard addition in the proper place and 
understandable to the participants to a relation.

I obviously favor the second one, but legacy, transition and legitimate 
needs of some applications designers (such as seemingly some Unicode and 
W3C persons) should also be supported. This should be easy in having the 
first solution supported as one of the possibilities of the second one.

As a general comment, after a debate of three months I still fail to 
understand the need. Which means the basics who, when, why, how. This 
affects the whole proposition credibility. Harald said four years ago: we 
will store a few data in the IANA through a privately organized list. This 
solution turned out to be too limited to some and experimented huge delays 
in updating the IANA server. The first question is therefore to know if RFC 
3066 made good choices. Errare humanum est (RFC 3066), diabolicum 
perseverare (current idea of dramatically increasing the load on a lame 
solution).

Until I have a clear description of the need(s), I do not think a response 
can be described and quantified. Until then I do not think we can say if 
the IANA is the appropriate location and for what.

For example, I suppose that your voice reading support (not to enter the 
debate of the trans-  faux-amis) concerns primarily the mobile and mail 
reading in market terms. There are 3 billions phones and 1.3 billions 
mobiles. This makes 5.3 billions of probable users. We all understand that 
we need to discuss better to know how many times a year, a month, a day 
they may have to download 300 or 600.000 bytes?

Thank you.
jfc


_______________________________________________
Ltru mailing list
Ltru@lists.ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ltru