- From: Felix Sasaki <fsasaki@w3.org>
- Date: Tue, 29 Apr 2008 08:38:12 +0900
- To: John Cowan <cowan@ccil.org>
- CC: Asmus Freytag <asmusf@ix.netcom.com>, Leif Halvard Silli <lhs@malform.no>, Andrew Cunningham <andrewc@vicnet.net.au>, www-international@w3.org
John Cowan wrote:
> Asmus Freytag scripsit:
>
>
>> There are parts of the planets where it is common for people to command
>> more than one language.
>>
>
> Most of it, indeed.
>
>
>> Of course, a meta tag that (reliably :-) ) described something as
>> 'translation', or conversely as 'official language version' would be
>> useful, too.
>>
>
> This would be a good use case for a BCP 47 registered extension,
> something like 't-*' to report the translation status of a document.
> Off the top of my head, the obvious candidates would be t-original,
> t-authentic (for documents which are "equally authentic" in all language
> versions), t-polished, t-rough, and t-machine.
>
I see some overlap with the functionality ITS "Translate" offers, see
http://www.w3.org/TR/its/#trans-datacat
while ITS "Translate" is meant to express a directive ("Translate this
part, but not this!"), your "t-*" extension is meant to express a
status. This seems to be useful, however, I'm not sure if having it as
part of a language tag helps. Imagine a localization project in which
several people and tools work on the same parts of a document, and you
need to assign several status, changing over time, like
"t-rough-version1", "t-machine-implementation1-version1",
"t-machine-implementation2-version2" etc. This is an open,
project-specific list of values. Another example of objects which need
different values, but are in the same domain (from a localization point
of view) seem to be images which are "localized", but not translated.
Felix
Received on Monday, 28 April 2008 23:38:50 UTC