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

"Martin J. Dürst" <> Wed, 13 July 2011 06:31 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8514921F8B7D for <>; Tue, 12 Jul 2011 23:31:23 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -99.49
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-99.49 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.300, BAYES_00=-2.599, HELO_EQ_JP=1.244, HOST_EQ_JP=1.265, J_CHICKENPOX_34=0.6, MIME_8BIT_HEADER=0.3, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id Iij2VjXWjc9f for <>; Tue, 12 Jul 2011 23:31:19 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 325CB21F8B99 for <>; Tue, 12 Jul 2011 23:31:19 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ([]) by (secret/secret) with SMTP id p6D6VAVv004478 for <>; Wed, 13 Jul 2011 15:31:10 +0900
Received: from (unknown []) by with smtp id 2abb_d39b_b2c41764_ad19_11e0_bd84_001d096c5b62; Wed, 13 Jul 2011 15:31:10 +0900
Received: from [IPv6:::1] ([]:40316) by with [XMail 1.22 ESMTP Server] id <S152D52D> for <> from <>; Wed, 13 Jul 2011 15:31:10 +0900
Message-ID: <>
Date: Wed, 13 Jul 2011 15:30:29 +0900
From: =?UTF-8?B?Ik1hcnRpbiBKLiBEw7xyc3Qi?= <>
Organization: Aoyama Gakuin University
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 6.1; en-US; rv: Gecko/20100722 Eudora/3.0.4
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Felix Sasaki <>
References: <>
In-Reply-To: <>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Subject: Re: [Ltru] Language tags and (localization) processes (Re: draft-davis-t-langtag-ext)
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: Language Tag Registry Update working group discussion list <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 13 Jul 2011 06:31:23 -0000

Hello Felix,

(I have removed, to avoid cross-postings.)

On 2011/07/12 16:23, Felix Sasaki wrote:
> The current draft states
> "Language tags, as defined by
> [BCP47<>]7>],
> 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 , 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.

> 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.

> 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.

Regards,    Martin.