Language tags and (localization) processes (Re: [Ltru] draft-davis-t-langtag-ext)

Mark Davis ☕ mark at
Wed Jul 13 16:32:42 CEST 2011

Sorry, I missed this earlier. Will respond.

*— Il meglio è l’inimico del bene —*

On Tue, Jul 12, 2011 at 00:23, Felix Sasaki <felix.sasaki at>wrote:

> The current draft states
> "Language tags, as defined by [BCP47<>],
> are useful for identifying the
>    language of content.  There are mechanisms for specifying variant
>    subtags for special purposes.  However, these variants are
>    insufficient for specifying text transformations, including content
> that has been transliterated, transcribed, or translated."
> I am requesting a clarification from the editors, that includes a liaison
> with the Unicode ULI TC , and a clarification in
> the draft.
> Language tags so far have described *states*: an object is in a language, a
> script etc. The proposed extension extends languages to describe the outcome
> of a *process*: objects have been transformed, with a source object as the
> basis for this process. According to the paragraph above, this
> transformation includes also translation.
> So far formats like TBX, XLIFF or others have been used for aligning source
> and target contents. These formats also use language tags, via xml:lang.
> However, the transformation, i.e. the process information, is not expressed
> via the language tag, but via XML structures (pairs of source and target
> elements). The language tags are purely for identifying the state of an
> object.
> To avoid confusion for users of the above and other, process related
> formats about where to put language identification information and where to
> put process related information, I am asking you to
> 1) Liaise with the ULI TC about the issue described above and see what
> issues they see here
> 2) Document the outcome of this liaison on this list and in the draft
> There is no need to have long explanations in the draft, but guidance about
> the topic will be very helpful to avoid confusion.
> As a side note, formats like TBX, XLIFF and others reduce the usage of a
> language tag for good reasons: information related to processes like
> translation can be very complex, e.g. expressing translation state, cycle,
> quality. So I have the general concern that language tags might be
> overloaded with key value pairs in areas that would require more complex
> information and that potentially overlap with formats that provide that
> information. Nevertheless I won't object against moving this extension
> forward, if the concerns are explained properly in the draft.
> Felix
> 2011/7/12 Mark Davis ☕ <mark at>
>> We've posted a new version of
>> Diffs are here:
>> The changes are:
>> * Made it clear that application to the case of speech was included, added
>> Peter C's example.
>> * Fixed references, adding authors, removing unneeded reference.
>> * Changed ABNF. Mostly just the table form, but also defined alphanum.
>> * Made it clear that the CLDR committee must post proposals publicly.
>> * Added more information on the XML structure, including the description
>> attribute. (Note that the CLDR committee had decided to add the description
>> attribute before this process began.)
>> * Added fixes for typos noted by CEW.
>> Please let us know of further feedback.
>> Note to Doug: The CLDR committee had agreed to move the descriptions into
>> the bcp47 files, such as
>> Yoshito
>> has the action to do that, and was able to accelerate it. So please take a
>> look if you have the time.
>> Mark
>> _______________________________________________
>> Ltru mailing list
>> Ltru at
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <>

More information about the Ietf-languages mailing list