W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-multilingualweb-lt@w3.org > July 2012

Re: ACTION-161 "Talk to shaun about BCP47 compatibility"

From: Felix Sasaki <fsasaki@w3.org>
Date: Sun, 8 Jul 2012 21:36:32 +0200
Message-ID: <CAL58czpsHJbKdtsf+q=2n6uw3v++1XjEDf4XHr8r_5yuO9_nbg@mail.gmail.com>
To: Yves Savourel <ysavourel@enlaso.com>
Cc: Shaun McCance <shaunm@gnome.org>, public-multilingualweb-lt@w3.org
Thanks for the clarification, Yves, and sorry to you and Shaun, I obviously
got this wrong during the meeting. I corrected the minutes with a reference
to Yves' correction

http://www.w3.org/2012/07/05-mlw-lt-minutes.html#item13

Best,

Felix

2012/7/8 Yves Savourel <ysavourel@enlaso.com>

> Just a small correction:
> I donít think Shaun ha sthis implemented.
> I think he was part of the discussion where the possible data category was
> discussed in the ITS interest group, and described here: (
> http://www.w3.org/International/its/wiki/IssuesAndProposedFeatures#Proposal:_data_category_for_automated_language_processing
> ).
>
> -ys
> \
> From: Felix Sasaki [mailto:fsasaki@w3.org]
> Sent: Sunday, July 08, 2012 6:38 PM
> To: Shaun McCance
> Cc: public-multilingualweb-lt@w3.org
> Subject: ACTION-161 "Talk to shaun about BCP47 compatibility"
>
> 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/bcp47the
> )
> 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
>
>
>


-- 
Felix Sasaki
DFKI / W3C Fellow
Received on Sunday, 8 July 2012 19:36:57 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 16:31:47 UTC