Machine Translation

Peter Constable petercon at
Thu Sep 10 05:08:00 CEST 2009

From: "Martin J. Dürst" [mailto:duerst at] 

>> A generic tag ("machxlat"?) doesn't seem like a terrible idea.
> Sorry, but I have difficulties understanding "doesn't seem ... 
> terrible". Is that a positive or a negative judgement?

It's not a negative judgment. As should be clear from my following comments, it's ambivalent.

>> But it's also not clear to me how it would be used: would it only be reported to users in some UI, or would other automated processes be used on tags containing this subtag?

> As always, tags just give information. How this information is being used is up to the consumers.

Well, if Debbie or anyone else would like a less ambivalent opinion from me, then I first want to hear how it's thought the subtag would actually be used. Someone coming asking for a tag for written variants of Foobian from the 1520s as attested in the writings of a school of Obscurium monks is one thing: that isn't likely going to have a high degree of impact on implementations I'm in any way responsible for. A generic subtag for "machine translated" is quite a different matter.


More information about the Ietf-languages mailing list