New extension for transformed languages

[Mark Davis ☕]

The first versions of the document had a narrower scope, but during
the course of development, it was clear that there are a great many
use cases where people wanted the ability to have a much broader
scope, and it was widened—not merely to 'translation' but to the
broader 'transform'. While you may not see the need for those, other
people did.

However, the system works like language tags; additional subtags can
be registered to narrow the scope. For example, ru-t-it-m0-ungegn
means not only a transliteration, but one that follows UNGEGN rules.
And these can also be dated, if necessary to have finer distinctions,
such as ru-t-it-m0-ungegn-2003. So if you (or anyone else) wants to,
you can propose addition subtags, such as one to specify that the
transform uses another transliteration system, or a broader subtag to
indicate that it is a transcription (and not a translation or other
transform). The currently registered -t- subtags are at
http://unicode.org/repos/cldr/trunk/common/bcp47/transform.xml.

(BTW, it appears that you still didn't read the RFC, but just did a
search-in-page for "translat". If you broaden slightly to "trans",
you'd pick up "transform", and see that it is even broader than
translation. Or you could just read the document; it's not that long.
;-)

________________________________
Mark

— Il meglio è l’inimico del bene —



On Mon, Mar 5, 2012 at 08:10, Michael Everson <everson at evertype.com> wrote:
> On 5 Mar 2012, at 15:39, Mark Davis ☕ wrote:
>
>> Degrees of precision can be specified, as with BCP47 itself.
>>
>> It is useful to read the document rather than just commenting on its
>> advantages or disadvantages based on fragments quoted on email: it's
>> quite short, see http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc6497.
>
> The word "translation" occurs once and the word "translated" occurs three times in the document and in no case is it specified how one would use the -t- tag for translation.
>
> Transliteration and transcription, yes. I recommend (VERY STRONGLY) that the terms "translated" and "translation" be deleted from the RFC as that is a whole nother ball of wax entirely.
>
> Michael Everson * http://www.evertype.com/
>
> _______________________________________________
> Ietf-languages mailing list
> Ietf-languages at alvestrand.no
> http://www.alvestrand.no/mailman/listinfo/ietf-languages