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

[Felix Sasaki <[e-mail]>]

Hello Martin,

many thanks for your feedback.

2011/7/13 "Martin J. Dürst" <[e-mail]>

> Hello Felix,
>
> (I have removed [e-mail], 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.


>
>
>
>  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.
>

I agree. Mark or Addison, if you need more detailed / different text than
the above, please let me know.

Regards,

Felix


>
> Regards,    Martin.
>