[gnso.secretariat@gnso.icann.org: ICANN Draft Translation Programmeopen for public comment]

[CE Whitehead]

Thanks for sharing this draft. I sent one comment to ICANN (I have not really had time to review the draft in detail).I generally support ICANN's mixed way of doing these translations--outsourcing them plus managing volunteer reviewers (I note that ICANN is dealing with only a few languages, not the 100's that the W3C translation system deals with, so it should be easier for ICANN to control this process)However, I sort of oppose publishing a particular machine translation online (although machine translations have improved some).   When a human translation is not available, would simply providing a link to a free machine translator--rather than a machine translation of perhaps poor quality--not be better?  Or would that be too much of a burden on the reader?  
 
(It seems to me that the various machine translators have made use of one another's algorithms, to the point tha, given a particular piece of text, the free machine translation services I am familiar with yield exactly the same results, errors and all.) --C. E. Whiteheadcewcathar at hotmail.com > From: nobody at xyzzy.claranet.de> Date: Sat, 1 Mar 2008 10:49:54 +0100> Subject: Re: [gnso.secretariat at gnso.icann.org: ICANN Draft Translation Programmeopen for public comment]> > Stephane Bortzmeyer wrote:> > > Since this draft document, open to comments, talks a lot about> > human languages, I feel it is relevant here.> Thanks; Stephane.> http://icann.org/translations/draft-translation-programme-v2.2-13feb08-en_EN.pdfThanks for this link, Frank.> > 127 KB PDF, visible with Acroreader 8.1.2 on W2K without crash,> I didn't look for an accessible non-Proprietary Document Format. > > > Do note that the plan for language identifiers, in the current> > version, is ISO 639 (with just ISO 3166 country codes), not BCP 47 :-(> > Apparently they use locale indentifiers. After a somewhat obscure > procedure they arrived at 11 languages for most of their purposes,> likely they don't need RFC 4646 tags for this job. Possibly no.> On the bright> side, no ECMA 376 numbers ;-) Just propose RFC 4646 language tags> if you think it is important, there is a public comment forum.> > Frank> Fine with me. But I leave that to you two and the rest to decide what to propose here.--C. E. Whiteheadcewcathar at hotmail.com 
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.alvestrand.no/pipermail/ietf-languages/attachments/20080301/f67c86ef/attachment.html