doug at ewellic.org
Sat Sep 12 21:21:50 CEST 2009
Felix Sasaki <felix dot sasaki at fh dash potsdam dot de>: wrote:
> 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.
This is exactly why, IF this type of information is to be captured in a
BCP 47 tag at all, it would be better to create an extension rather than
registering a suite of variants, more or less haphazardly, which might
impose too much specificity on some uses and not enough on others.
We should probably have the "BCP 47 or not" debate first, and only then,
if it is decided to support this in BCP 47, worry about whether to use
variants or extensions.
Doug Ewell | Thornton, Colorado, USA | http://www.ewellic.org
RFC 5645, 4645, UTN #14 | ietf-languages @ http://is.gd/2kf0s
More information about the Ietf-languages