Mark Davis ☕️ mark at
Thu Dec 22 10:05:05 CET 2016

The T mechanism isn't intended to be a kitchen-sink extension. The much
more general mechanism is the U one, which by now has a variety of
different settings. The initial focus for the T was on more classic
transforms, such as transliteration, so much of the discussion and examples
were centered around that. The scope will always be limited by the the goal
to have a source locale that influences in some way a target locale — much
more constrained than the U extension — but there was no intent to limit
the scope to be overly narrow.

Here's the ticket, and comments are welcome: Because of the winter holidays,
the CLDR committee will not take this up before January.


On Thu, Dec 22, 2016 at 8:13 AM, Martin J. Dürst <duerst at>

> On 2016/12/20 20:35, John Cowan wrote:
>> On Tue, Dec 20, 2016 at 2:36 AM, Mark Davis ☕️ <mark at>
>> wrote:
>> You are being mislead by the the term "Transformed Content" in the title
>> of
>>> the RFC. As the abstract makes clear, the scope has always been broader
>>> than simply a transform.
> I don't see that the abstract says that at all.  It specifies translation,
>> transcription, and transliterations as types of transformations, and
>> implies that there may be other types.  There is no hint of a semantic
>> extension to things beyond transformations.
> I fully agree with John.
> Yes. Also, the whole document uses the word(stem) "transform" lots and
> lots, 28 times on a simplistic count. There's some wording about 'other'
> and 'not limited', but this is the usual kind of wording that gets put into
> a specification to make sure to have a bit of wiggle room and avoid being
> nailed down too narrowly.
> But given all the examples and all the text in the document together, it's
> quite clear, at least to me, that this extension isn't intended to be a
> kitchen-sink extension. And so I hope it won't be used in that way.
> The idea of -t- is that what comes before the -t- is the language of the
>> content as we have it, and what follows is the language of some other
>> content, called the source, from which this present content is somehow
>> derived.  Indeed, your ticket emphasizes the phrase "influenced by the
>> source."   But there is no source here, no all-English or all-Spanish
>> original from which the poems I quoted were made.   Using -t- to represent
>> an interlanguage text is tag abuse.
>> It's true that a machine translator like Google's that leaves words alone
>> that it does not understand (except for transliterating them) might
>> produce
>> a text that looked vaguely like these poems, and such partially translated
>> output might be justly tagged en-t-es-m0-google or es-t-en-etc.  But that
>> case is not this case.
>> I have added a comment to the ticket expressing this view more tersely.
> This ticket is being mentioned repeatedly. Can somebody give its location?
> Regards,   Martin.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <>

More information about the Ietf-languages mailing list