- From: Arle Lommel <arle.lommel@dfki.de>
- Date: Wed, 4 Jul 2012 10:09:21 +0200
- To: Dave Lewis <dave.lewis@cs.tcd.ie>
- Cc: "public-multilingualweb-lt@w3.org" <public-multilingualweb-lt@w3.org>
I think it is distinct. The idea as I recall it was to address pivot languages, e.g., you have a text in Chinese that has been translated into English and now you are using the English as a source in its own right. So the English source doesn't actually have a way to tell you that the real source was actually Chinese, even though knowing that would be very useful for a downstream translator who wonders about problems in the English that might make sense if they know about the previous translation. In addition, take a case where you have an automatically translated text online: knowing what it was translated from might lead your processes to make certain choices. So I think the problem here was just that the use case wasn't clear. Arle > > I can't see a case where, by definition, this won't be the same as indicated by xml:lang or its:langRule, so it seems superfluous
Received on Wednesday, 4 July 2012 08:09:56 UTC