Machine Translation

Kent Karlsson kent.karlsson14 at
Fri Sep 11 20:01:45 CEST 2009

What you say is correct for a (single) variant subtag, as initially
suggested, but extension subtags
work differently. See
Data like that you refer
to can be put in the part that follows the extention "singleton".

Note also that section 2.2.6 starts:
"Extensions provide a mechanism for extending language tags for use in
   various applications.  They are intended to identify information that
   is commonly used in association with languages or language tags but
   that is not part of language identification.

        /kent k

Den 2009-09-11 18.35, skrev "Felix Sasaki" <felix.sasaki at>:

> I would agree with Yves Savourel that for translation tool developers, this
> kind of information is better provided via a different field. Other practical
> information which one could not pack into a broad data category "machine
> translation" easily (to use Peter's terminology), but not easily in the
> "language tag" field would be: name of system that generated the translation
> (maybe several ones where used ...), quality of the input, quality rating of
> the system (e.g. BLEU score). IMO these fine grained differences are necessary
> for making use of this kind of metadata, and I don't see a clear use case for
> a broad "machine translated" sub tag.
> Felix
> 2009/9/11 Kent Karlsson <kent.karlsson14 at>
>> Den 2009-09-11 17.32, skrev "Peter Constable" <petercon at>:
>>> > From: ietf-languages-bounces at
>>> > [mailto:ietf-languages-bounces at] On Behalf Of Felix Sasaki
>>> >
>>>> >> There is a difference in the case of XLIFF. If the extension subtag is
>>>> just
>>>> >> similar,
>>>> >> but not identical to MT related information in other technologies like
>>>> XLIFF,
>>>> >> you
>>>> >> will end up with a mess of *values*. This is IMO different from the
>>>> script
>>>> >> subtag
>>>> >> case: Here you have the same values, but different *occurences*
>>> >
>>> > Expressed with different terminology: you end up with a mess of data
>>> > categories; in the script subtag case, you have a single data category
>>> with
>>> > many values.
>> I don't think that should be a major issue. XLIFF, and other formats having
>> separate attributes for this, could simply have that attribute take
>> priority, even to the extent that "language extensions", in particular one
>> that overlaps with an attribute, can be completely ignored in those formats.
>>         /kent k
>> _______________________________________________
>> Ietf-languages mailing list
>> Ietf-languages at

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...

More information about the Ietf-languages mailing list