Swiss german, spoken

[Karen_Broome at spe.sony.com]

I have an immediate need to prepare systems and metadata for eventual 
distribution in the Digital Cinema and MXF formats. (MXF is an XML format 
for film.) We are also working on an ISO audiovisual identification 
standard, ISAN, that obviously requires ISO compliance, yet the ISO 
language standards do not yet meet the descriptive requirements of our 
industry enough to differentiate similar product and language tracks.

We do not like the idea of using non-compliant tagging for work of this 
scope. This work is not Sony-Pictures-specific. It relates to the 
entertainment industry as a whole, where the differences between dialects 
are important and must be encoded in a standards-compliant way. We need 
this metadata to distinguish both dubbing and subtitle tracks.

Latin American Spanish is in wide use today -- it's more common in 
localization than any of the dialects that can be tied to a country region 
-- yet still does not have a proper  ISO code.  If the 419 code is sure to 
be made available, can it be made compliant today and deprecated when 
replaced by the RFC 3066 revision?

Karen Broome





"Mark Davis" <mark.davis at jtcsv.com>
Sent by: ietf-languages-bounces at alvestrand.no
06/10/2005 04:01 PM

 
        To:     "Peter Constable" <petercon at microsoft.com>, <ietf-languages at iana.org>
        cc: 
        Subject:        Re: Swiss german, spoken


Latin American Spanish is in a similar boat. Once 3066bis passes (which is
looking quite likely these days), then there is a mechanism for doing 
that,
so ideally we'd wait until then.

‎Mark

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Peter Constable" <petercon at microsoft.com>
To: <ietf-languages at iana.org>
Sent: Friday, June 10, 2005 15:36
Subject: RE: Swiss german, spoken


> From: ietf-languages-bounces at alvestrand.no [mailto:ietf-languages-
> bounces at alvestrand.no] On Behalf Of Michael Everson


> >Tag to be registered       : gsw
>
> This is not an RFC 3066 tag.

?!

Of course it's not -- yet. That's why she's asking for it to be
registered: so it can be one.


Technically, there's a problem here in relation to 3066. (Sorry, Karen,
for not thinking of this before.) An RFC 3066 tag of the form 3alpha
must be in ISO 639-2. "gsw" is in ISO/DIS 639-3, but not ISO 639-2.

Of course, Karen's problem is that she needs a tag for this now, she'd
like to use something that conforms to the RFC rather than just using
something regardless, but she also wants something that conforms with
what we anticipate will be best practice with a new RFC expected in the
near future. Thus, her options are:

1) start using "gsw" anticipating that it will be valid before long
under a revised RFC (after 639-3 is published), and be non-conformant
until then

2) request a tag like i-gsw so she can be conformant now, and then turn
around in a couple of months and asking for it to be deprecated and
revise her implementations

3) request a tag like i-gsw now with the assumption that we'll all be
saddled long term with this - i.e. one more grandfathered special case
in 3066bis

4) request gsw, hoping that people will be willing to bend the rules of
3066 by accepting it in anticipation of a future revision



Both 2 and 3 are undesirable because of the impact with anticipated
changes in 3066bis. Option 4 isn't permitted by 3066, though I wish that
wasn't the case. The first option is the only one that's permitted and
not undesireable for the community overall, though I wish we didn't have
to leave Karen and MPAA with no better alternative (though it would only
be temporary).



Peter Constable
_______________________________________________
Ietf-languages mailing list
Ietf-languages at alvestrand.no
http://www.alvestrand.no/mailman/listinfo/ietf-languages



_______________________________________________
Ietf-languages mailing list
Ietf-languages at alvestrand.no
http://www.alvestrand.no/mailman/listinfo/ietf-languages