petercon at microsoft.com
Thu Sep 10 17:56:40 CEST 2009
Michael, this is you at your worst in the role of Reviewer. You're reacting just the same way as you did when we had requests for tags for "Latin American Spanish": it doesn't fit your understanding of linguistic realities, and so you think it's out of scope. You're wrong!
The whole purpose of IETF language tags is to be used in processes. There is no reason to tag content unless some process somewhere is going to do something with that information.
I'm not at all convinced that there are reasonable use cases that warrant a subtag (or extension) for indicating MT content, but I really object to you ruling this out from the outset.
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-
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
More information about the Ietf-languages