Machine Translation

[Felix Sasaki]

There is another reason not to have a machine translation subtag: That kind
of information is already covered by vocabularies like XLIFF, see
http://docs.oasis-open.org/xliff/v1.2/cs02/xliff-core.html
and search for "leveraged-mt".

Felix

2009/9/10 Tex Texin <textexin at xencraft.com>

> I would agree. What they are really getting at is the quality of the
> translation.
>
> From that standpoint, people could ask for tags for professional vs.
> amateur/crowdsource translation and indicators whether a translation came
> from (previously approved) translation memory or not.
>
> tex
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: ietf-languages-bounces at alvestrand.no
> [mailto:ietf-languages-bounces at alvestrand.no] On Behalf Of Michael Everson
> Sent: Wednesday, September 09, 2009 11:57 PM
> To: ietflang IETF Languages Discussion
> Subject: Re: Machine Translation
>
> I foresee little likelihood of my approving such a tag. It is relevant
> to a process, not to a variety of language. As such it is meaningless.
>
> There is an Esperanto machine translator. It translates into Esperanto
> pretty well. Better than most people. <lang=esperanto>,
> <lang=esperanto-machine>, <lang=esperanto-x-everson>, <lang=esperanto-
> x-google>?
>
> There is no place for a "machine"; this is an authorship tag, not
> relevant to language identification.
>
> Michael Everson * http://www.evertype.com/
>
> _______________________________________________
> Ietf-languages mailing list
> Ietf-languages at alvestrand.no
> http://www.alvestrand.no/mailman/listinfo/ietf-languages
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20090910/1f899c53/attachment.htm