pseudo-localization variants

Mark Davis ☕ mark at macchiato.com
Tue Dec 18 19:33:23 CET 2012


There is a related CLDR ticket for this functionality:

http://unicode.org/cldr/trac/ticket/3971

It is in the "design" stage, so it has yet to be agreed upon.


Mark <https://plus.google.com/114199149796022210033>
*
*
*— Il meglio è l’inimico del bene —*
**



On Mon, Dec 17, 2012 at 9:10 PM, Phillips, Addison <addison at lab126.com>wrote:

> That's an interesting problem.
>
> We use pseudo a lot and generally in one of two ways.
>
> First, we use it in the way you did historically (we use Albanian).
> But I18N testing requires real locales, so often it's a dev build option
> on a "mainstream" locale.
>
> In a recent conversation with some of the ITS folks, it seems that this
> was a problem that localizers face: the need to identify a token as being
> in a pseudo language. So I could support an identifier. Although maybe an
> option is the "art" subtag?
>
> Addison
>
> Addison Phillips
> Globalization Architect (Lab126)
> Chair (W3C I18N WG)
>
> Sent from my Kindle Fire HD
>
>
> Peter Constable <petercon at microsoft.com> wrote:
>
>  A lot of companies use pseudo-localization methods for testing
> localizability in which a source string in the development (e.g., in
> English) is transformed into a different spelling that uses other
> characters, changes the length and perhaps other things to provide
> something that can still be read in the same language by the development
> team / localization engineers but that emulates some of the qualities that
> might arise when the strings are truly localized. For example, “Bing App
> custom protocol” might be pseudo-localized to “[HoKVu]《ßíηģ Дþφ čũşťøm
> рґöŧõςοŀ伪》” or (for bidi testing) to “حفظ(Bing App custom protocol!)שמור”.
>
>
>
> Within MS, there’s been a bit of up and down history with how pseudo-loc
> content has been handled. When this was first done, all content got tagged
> using Windows numeric locale IDs (LCIDs), and there wasn’t one for pseudo,
> so the LCID for some language that Windows wasn’t localized into was used,
> which worked until the day came when Windows actually _*was*_ localized
> into that language. After some iterations, today a private-use language
> subtag “qps” is used. Sadly, none of the complete tags are valid BCP 47
> tags, since non-registered variant subtags are used. (Even more sadly, the
> main one that’s most frequently used wouldn’t even be viable as a variant
> subtag since it’s only 4 letters.)
>
>
>
> That’s made me wonder if it wouldn’t make sense to register one or more
> variant subtags for pseudo-localized content.
>
>
>
>
>
> Thoughts?
>
>
>
>
>
> Peter
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20121218/9c1358e9/attachment.html>


More information about the Ietf-languages mailing list