- From: Felix Sasaki <fsasaki@w3.org>
- Date: Sun, 8 Jul 2012 18:38:02 +0200
- To: Shaun McCance <shaunm@gnome.org>
- Cc: public-multilingualweb-lt@w3.org
- Message-ID: <CAL58czqu=qiknv597b181DZUYFNA6jpRoozY4B0K7qqQ=fykGg@mail.gmail.com>
Hi Shaun, with http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-multilingualweb-lt/2012Jul/0010.html as a basis, at http://www.w3.org/2012/07/05-mlw-lt-minutes.html#item13 we discussed autoLanguageProcessingRule. One aspect that came up was whether this should be specific to transliteration - Yves mentioned that you have implemented this not only for transliteration, but also for machine translation. That leads to the question what the relation to BCP 47 "t" extension should be. See as an input the RFC for the "t" extension http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc6497 which has transliteration as an example und-Latn-t-und-cyrl and the discussion at http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-multilingualweb-lt/2012Jun/0155.html ( >> 5) WRT to the tags that Mark mentioned in 1. below: are the "transform" >> XML files here >> http://unicode.org/cldr/trac/browser/tags/release-21-0-2/common/bcp47 the ) This discussion showed that the fields for the "t" extension include also values for machine translation, see http://unicode.org/cldr/trac/browser/tags/release-21-0-2/common/bcp47/transform_mt.xml [ <key extension="t" name="t0" description="Machine Translation: 8 Used to indicate content that has been machine translated, or a request for a particular type of machine translation of content. 9 The first subfield in a sequence would typically be a 'platform' or vendor designation." since="21.0.2"> 10 <type name="und" description="The choice of machine translation is not specified. Used when the only information known (or requested) is that the text was machine translated." since="21.0.2" /> ] For other "transform" fields, see http://unicode.org/cldr/trac/browser/tags/release-21-0-2/common/bcp47/transform.xml We now want to make sure that - if we provide a data category "autoLanguageProcessingRule" - that this is somehow consistent with the BCP 47 approach, or that at least we have a good story why it doesn't need to be consistent. Do you have any thoughts about this? Looking very much forward to your feedback, Felix -- Felix Sasaki DFKI / W3C Fellow
Received on Sunday, 8 July 2012 16:38:29 UTC