<html>
<head>
<style>
.hmmessage P
{
margin:0px;
padding:0px
}
body.hmmessage
{
FONT-SIZE: 10pt;
FONT-FAMILY:Tahoma
}
</style>
</head>
<body class='hmmessage'>
<BR><BR>Thanks for sharing this draft.<BR> <BR>I sent one comment to ICANN (I have not really had time to review the draft in detail).<BR><BR>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)<BR><BR>However, I sort of oppose publishing a particular machine translation online (although machine translations have improved some). <BR> <BR>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? <BR>
<BR>
(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.)<BR><BR> <BR>--C. E. Whitehead<BR><A href="mailto:cewcathar@hotmail.com">cewcathar@hotmail.com</A> <BR><BR>> From: nobody@xyzzy.claranet.de<BR>> Date: Sat, 1 Mar 2008 10:49:54 +0100<BR>> Subject: Re: [gnso.secretariat@gnso.icann.org: ICANN Draft Translation Programmeopen for public comment]<BR>> <BR>> Stephane Bortzmeyer wrote:<BR>> <BR>> > Since this draft document, open to comments, talks a lot about<BR>> > human languages, I feel it is relevant here.<BR>> <BR>Thanks; Stephane.<BR>> <A href="http://icann.org/translations/draft-translation-programme-v2.2-13feb08-en_EN.pdf">http://icann.org/translations/draft-translation-programme-v2.2-13feb08-en_EN.pdf</A><BR>Thanks for this link, Frank.<BR>> <BR>> 127 KB PDF, visible with Acroreader 8.1.2 on W2K without crash,<BR>> I didn't look for an accessible non-Proprietary Document Format. <BR>> <BR>> > Do note that the plan for language identifiers, in the current<BR>> > version, is ISO 639 (with just ISO 3166 country codes), not BCP 47 :-(<BR>> <BR>> Apparently they use locale indentifiers. After a somewhat obscure <BR>> procedure they arrived at 11 languages for most of their purposes,<BR>> likely they don't need RFC 4646 tags for this job. <BR>Possibly no.<BR>> On the bright<BR>> side, no ECMA 376 numbers ;-) Just propose RFC 4646 language tags<BR>> if you think it is important, there is a public comment forum.<BR>> <BR>> Frank<BR>> <BR>Fine with me. <BR>But I leave that to you two and the rest to decide what to propose here.<BR><BR>--C. E. Whitehead<BR><A href="mailto:cewcathar@hotmail.com">cewcathar@hotmail.com</A> <BR><BR><BR></body>
</html>