At 06:33 05/06/14, Mark Davis wrote:
>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.
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.
_______________________________________________ Ltru mailing list Ltru at lists.ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ltru
Note Well: Messages sent to this mailing list are the opinions of the senders and do not imply endorsement by the IETF.