Machine Translation

[Mark Davis ⌛]

I think it is cleaner, simpler, and much more likely to be used if we just
have an additional variant tag, like "mactrans".

If there is ever a strong use case for distinguishing subvariants, that can
be taken up at a later time. I'm not convinced it will -- one would have to
have some reasonable use cases.


Mark


On Wed, Sep 9, 2009 at 20:43, Doug Ewell <doug at ewellic.org> wrote:

> John Cowan <cowan at ccil dot org> wrote:
>
> > I think this is a good use case for a BCP 47 extension; translation
> > source information is closely associated with BCP 47 language tags,
> > such that it would make sense to pack them into a single string, yet
> > distinct enough from the language/origin/variant model to not fit into
> > it well.
>
> Good points all.
>
> > To be sure, the administrative barrier against adding a new extension
> > is *much* higher than that against adding a new variant, although the
> > required RFC will be much less complex than BCP 47.
>
> I hereby offer to help with the RFC if anyone wants to do this, but I do
> not volunteer to moderate any mailing lists.
>
> > (This should silence Doug's whinging on the subject of extensions.)
>
> I hereby promise to whinge less if this goes through.
>
> --
> Doug Ewell  |  Thornton, Colorado, USA  |  http://www.ewellic.org
> RFC 5645, 4645, UTN #14  |  ietf-languages @ http://is.gd/2kf0s
>
> _______________________________________________
> Ietf-languages mailing list
> Ietf-languages at alvestrand.no
> http://www.alvestrand.no/mailman/listinfo/ietf-languages
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.alvestrand.no/pipermail/ietf-languages/attachments/20090909/955244c4/attachment.htm