kent.karlsson14 at comhem.se
Fri Sep 11 13:25:42 CEST 2009
Den 2009-09-10 10.40, skrev "Felix Sasaki" <felix.sasaki at fh-potsdam.de>:
> There is another reason not to have a machine translation subtag: That kind of
> information is already covered by vocabularies like XLIFF, see
> and search for "leveraged-mt".
To quote the table in full:
State-qualifier - Describes the state of a particular translation in a
<target> or <bin-target> element.
The pre-defined values are defined in the table below.
exact-match Indicates an exact match. An exact match occurs when a source
text of a segment is exactly the same as the source text of a segment that
was translated previously.
fuzzy-match Indicates a fuzzy match. A fuzzy match occurs when a source
text of a segment is very similar to the source text of a segment that was
translated previously (e.g. when the difference is casing, a few changed
words, white-space discripancy, etc.).
id-match Indicates a match based on matching IDs (in addition to matching
leveraged-glossary Indicates a translation derived from a glossary.
leveraged-inherited Indicates a translation derived from existing
leveraged-mt Indicates a translation derived from machine translation.
leveraged-repository Indicates a translation derived from a translation
leveraged-tm Indicates a translation derived from a translation memory.
mt-suggestion Indicates the translation is suggested by machine
rejected-grammar Indicates that the item has been rejected because of
rejected-inaccurate Indicates that the item has been rejected because it
rejected-length Indicates that the item has been rejected because it is
too long or too short.
rejected-spelling Indicates that the item has been rejected because of
tm-suggestion Indicates the translation is suggested by translation
In addition, user-defined values can be used with this attribute. A
user-defined value must start with an "x-" prefix.
("mt-suggestion" seems to be closer in intent than "leveraged-mt" to the
suggestion in the origin of this thread)
The problem with this is that it applies to XLIFF (XML Localization
Interchange File Format) only. A language tag extension, in contrast, can be
anywhere language tags can already be used.
I think variant subtag(s) for this is quite inappropriate. It is not a
language (or orthography) variant; it is a translation status indication
that is being discussed in this thread.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the Ietf-languages