Re: [Ltru] Language tags and (localization) processes (Re: draft-davis-t-langtag-ext)

Mark Davis ☕ <mark@macchiato.com> Wed, 13 July 2011 16:30 UTC

Return-Path: <mark.edward.davis@gmail.com>
X-Original-To: ltru@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ltru@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2891E11E8163 for <ltru@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 13 Jul 2011 09:30:35 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.261
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.261 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.069, BAYES_00=-2.599, FM_FORGED_GMAIL=0.622, HTML_FONT_FACE_BAD=0.884, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, J_CHICKENPOX_34=0.6, MIME_8BIT_HEADER=0.3, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id pJ3yftaQ0UlN for <ltru@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 13 Jul 2011 09:30:34 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-yi0-f44.google.com (mail-yi0-f44.google.com [209.85.218.44]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id F204211E8161 for <ltru@ietf.org>; Wed, 13 Jul 2011 09:30:33 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by yie30 with SMTP id 30so2944066yie.31 for <ltru@ietf.org>; Wed, 13 Jul 2011 09:30:33 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=mime-version:sender:in-reply-to:references:date :x-google-sender-auth:message-id:subject:from:to:cc:content-type; bh=zt+nS+TGqGZpbSlLsHMYKXspr/4u4RZja8FoMTpouyQ=; b=d2e1mrk6hac5fZgYU1IM59/N/djqgOIG/vVdDkdxKcWPZmqn3vz27qMe48MfPj0WZm kEIzNbxgGej/XWgxVZb5j2gapwri4lQkqta6kOafn7yOMlTmy171y2Lds0c3LatSL7DE DY3DVrehl+PSHGQiMdCs3sVEOz67jcOtrZQYU=
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.151.102.20 with SMTP id e20mr1436667ybm.22.1310574633382; Wed, 13 Jul 2011 09:30:33 -0700 (PDT)
Sender: mark.edward.davis@gmail.com
Received: by 10.151.83.9 with HTTP; Wed, 13 Jul 2011 09:30:33 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <CAL58czoSyxNpewLPpgHuK9Tc4dU3tq1C9ruMkNjCgCuTzmhBfw@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAL58czptZA+pRi4HYW8J0cAn7vSw=MM-N6193uzi7HG=2sRdBw@mail.gmail.com> <4E1D3B85.6070409@it.aoyama.ac.jp> <CAL58czoSyxNpewLPpgHuK9Tc4dU3tq1C9ruMkNjCgCuTzmhBfw@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 13 Jul 2011 09:30:33 -0700
X-Google-Sender-Auth: QXmYkU0VVeStbclB6wPEMElxk2o
Message-ID: <CAJ2xs_H-uGBzG3ETc30mQc4i6mvh0J8LXskhssqcokO-qe+xOA@mail.gmail.com>
From: =?UTF-8?B?TWFyayBEYXZpcyDimJU=?= <mark@macchiato.com>
To: Felix Sasaki <felix.sasaki@fh-potsdam.de>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=00151750dd6479745b04a7f5effd
Cc: ltru@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [Ltru] Language tags and (localization) processes (Re: draft-davis-t-langtag-ext)
X-BeenThere: ltru@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: Language Tag Registry Update working group discussion list <ltru.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/ltru>, <mailto:ltru-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ltru>
List-Post: <mailto:ltru@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ltru-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ltru>, <mailto:ltru-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 13 Jul 2011 16:30:35 -0000

Mark
*— Il meglio è l’inimico del bene —*


On Wed, Jul 13, 2011 at 00:37, Felix Sasaki <felix.sasaki@fh-potsdam.de>wrote;wrote:

> Hello Martin,
>
> many thanks for your feedback.
>
> 2011/7/13 "Martin J. Dürst" <duerst@it.aoyama.ac.jp>
>
>> Hello Felix,
>>
>> (I have removed ietf-languages@ietf.org, to avoid cross-postings.)
>>
>>
>> On 2011/07/12 16:23, Felix Sasaki wrote:
>>
>>> The current draft states
>>>
>>> "Language tags, as defined by
>>> [BCP47<http://tools.ietf.org/**html/draft-davis-t-langtag-**
>>> ext-02#ref-BCP47<http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-davis-t-langtag-ext-02#ref-BCP47>
>>> >],
>>>
>>> are useful for identifying the
>>>
>>>    language of content.  There are mechanisms for specifying variant
>>>    subtags for special purposes.  However, these variants are
>>>    insufficient for specifying text transformations, including content
>>>
>>> that has been transliterated, transcribed, or translated."
>>>
>>> I am requesting a clarification from the editors, that includes a liaison
>>> with the Unicode ULI TC http://uli.unicode.org/ , and a clarification in
>>> the
>>> draft.
>>>
>>
>> The IETF has liaisons, but not for a sentence or two in a single draft.
>> The IETF is open, so I suggest that you invite whoever is interested from
>> whoever organization to comment here.
>
>
>
> Of course I can point people from the ULI TC to comment on this draft. I
> was hoping that since this draft is being put forward mainly by a Unicode TC
> (CLDR), that Mark or others on this list who are members of that TC would
> engage with the ULI TC to assure coordination of efforts. But I am happy to
> do that on my own, and you are right that this is not a question of IETF
> liaisons.
>

I would be glad to talk to them about this, and will. I don't anticipate any
problems; structure such as XLIFF is very different, with very different
goals, than the identification of content.


>
>
>>
>>
>>
>>  Language tags so far have described *states*: an object is in a language,
>>> a
>>> script etc. The proposed extension extends languages to describe the
>>> outcome
>>> of a *process*: objects have been transformed, with a source object as
>>> the
>>> basis for this process. According to the paragraph above, this
>>> transformation includes also translation.
>>>
>>
>> I think you have a good point: The above description should be changed to
>> speak about the result of the transformation, not the process itself.
>
>
The very first paragraph indicates that it is results ("has been
transliterated, etc.") not process. Where there are other parts of the
document that you think need improvement, please let us know.

   for specifying the source language or script of transformed content,
   including content that has been transliterated, transcribed, or
   translated, or in some other way influenced by the source.  It also
   provides for additional information used for identification.



>>
>>
>>  So far formats like TBX, XLIFF or others have been used for aligning
>>> source
>>> and target contents. These formats also use language tags, via xml:lang.
>>> However, the transformation, i.e. the process information, is not
>>> expressed
>>> via the language tag, but via XML structures (pairs of source and target
>>> elements).
>>>
>>
>> That's probably the best for these kinds of formats and their
>> applications.
>>
>>
>>  The language tags are purely for identifying the state of an
>>> object.
>>>
>>
>> Yes, and some wording changes can make this clear.
>>
>
> I agree. Mark or Addison, if you need more detailed / different text than
> the above, please let me know.
>
> Regards,
>
> Felix
>
>
>>
>> Regards,    Martin.
>>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Ltru mailing list
> Ltru@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ltru
>
>