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

CE Whitehead <cewcathar@hotmail.com> Tue, 12 July 2011 19:18 UTC

Return-Path: <cewcathar@hotmail.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 6075821F8FC9 for <ltru@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 12 Jul 2011 12:18:09 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.538
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.538 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.539, BAYES_00=-2.599, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, J_CHICKENPOX_56=0.6]
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 D2lQZ97eDC2t for <ltru@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 12 Jul 2011 12:18:05 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from snt0-omc3-s33.snt0.hotmail.com (snt0-omc3-s33.snt0.hotmail.com [65.55.90.172]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0095D21F8FC2 for <ltru@ietf.org>; Tue, 12 Jul 2011 12:18:04 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from SNT142-W20 ([65.55.90.136]) by snt0-omc3-s33.snt0.hotmail.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.4675); Tue, 12 Jul 2011 12:18:04 -0700
Message-ID: <SNT142-w20BF4DF17B44BBD9F0ACADB3440@phx.gbl>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_95b8c947-13f6-44a8-b109-dc0af805f866_"
X-Originating-IP: [64.134.190.145]
From: CE Whitehead <cewcathar@hotmail.com>
To: <ltru@ietf.org>
Date: Tue, 12 Jul 2011 15:18:03 -0400
Importance: Normal
In-Reply-To: <SNT142-w31610556BDC6AE653BB861B3440@phx.gbl>
References: <SNT142-w387C284EF314AC8A855562B3440@phx.gbl>, <SNT142-w31610556BDC6AE653BB861B3440@phx.gbl>
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-OriginalArrivalTime: 12 Jul 2011 19:18:04.0086 (UTC) FILETIME=[6C42DD60:01CC40C8]
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: Tue, 12 Jul 2011 19:18:09 -0000

Hi again.From: cewcathar@hotmail.comTo: ltru@ietf.org; ietf-languages@iana.orgSubject: Language tags and (localization) processes (Re: [Ltru] draft-davis-t-langtag-ext)Date: Tue, 12 Jul 2011 14:35:13 -0400> Felix Sasaki felix.sasaki at fh-potsdam.de > Tue Jul 12 09:23:36 CEST 2011>> Language tags so far have described *states*: an object is in a language, a>> script etc. The proposed extension extends languages to 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 do personally agree that it's good to discuss and then document in the draft some of the concerns you have described.  > And yes, translation/transliteration is a process.> . . .> I do think this is briefly mentioned (intro, last paragraph):  > "The usage of this extension is not limited to formal transformations,
  > and may include other instances where the content is in some other
  > way influenced by the source.  For example, this extension could be
  >  used to designate a request for a speech recognizer that is tailored
  > specifically for 2nd-language speakers who are 1st-language speakers
  > of a particular language (e.g. a recognizer for "English spoken with
  > a Chinese accent").">  Maybe there could be very brief info (in the intro or where the M0 part of the extension is discussed) on the methods/mechanism used in transcription, why they are relevant to indicate, a sentence or something?Actually you have brought this up sufficiently for me in section 2.5:       "A language tag with the t extension MAY be used to request a specific   transform of content.  In such a case, the recipient SHOULD return
   content that corresponds as closely as feasible to the requested
   transform, including the specification of the mechanism.  For
   example, if the request is ja-t-it-m0-xxx-v21a-2007, and the
   recipient has content corresponding to both ja-t-it-m0-xxx-v21a-2007
   and ja-t-it-m0-xxx-v21a-2009, then the 2007 version would be
   preferred.  As is the case for language matching as discussed in
   [BCP47], different implementations MAY have different measures of
   "closeness"."Best,--C. E. Whiteheadcewcathar@hotmail.com