Machine Translation

[Doug Ewell]

Felix Sasaki <felix dot sasaki at fh dash potsdam dot de> wrote:

>> The problem with this is that it applies to XLIFF (XML Localization 
>> Interchange File Format) only. A language tag extension, in contrast, 
>> can be used anywhere language tags can already be used.
>
> Yes, but in XLIFF it is a common to store such information in a 
> separate field, that is not as part of a language identifier (which 
> are used as well in XLIFF, via xml:lang). Having a language identifier 
> with similar information would create confusion.

The same argument was made against script subtags during the development 
of RFC 4646.

> I did not propose the table as an input for variant subtags. I rather 
> think that people who mostly need the use case discussed in this 
> thread (the localization industry) lalready have the means the need - 
> they just do not rely on language tags for the purpose of identifying 
> machine translated content.

In fact, the thread started with someone saying they did not have a 
means to identify machine-translated content, and were looking to 
language tags to fill the void.

--
Doug Ewell  |  Thornton, Colorado, USA  |  http://www.ewellic.org
RFC 5645, 4645, UTN #14  |  ietf-languages @ http://is.gd/2kf0s