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

From: Felix Sasaki <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 12 Jul 2011 09:23:36 +0200

The current draft states

"Language tags, as defined by
[BCP47<http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-davis-t-langtag-ext-02#ref-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 http://uli.unicode.org/ , 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 ☕ <[email-masked]>

> We've posted a new version of
> http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-davis-t-langtag-ext
>
> Diffs are here:
> http://tools.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=draft-davis-t-langtag-ext-02.txt
>
> 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
> http://unicode.org/repos/cldr/trunk/common/bcp47/calendar.xml. 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
> [email-masked]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ltru
>
>

---

From: "Martin J. Dürst" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 13 Jul 2011 15:30:29 +0900

Hello Felix,

(I have removed [email-masked], to avoid cross-postings.)

> with the Unicode ULI TC http://uli.unicode.org/ , and a clarification in the

The IETF has liaisons, but not for a sentence or two in a single draft. 
The IETF is open, so I suggest that you invite whoever is interested 
from whoever organization to comment here.

> transformation includes also translation.

I think you have a good point: The above description should be changed 
to speak about the result of the transformation, not the process itself.

> elements).

That's probably the best for these kinds of formats and their applications.

> The language tags are purely for identifying the state of an
> object.

Yes, and some wording changes can make this clear.

Regards,    Martin.

---

From: Felix Sasaki <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 13 Jul 2011 09:37:05 +0200

Hello Martin,

many thanks for your feedback.

2011/7/13 "Martin J. Dürst" <[email-masked]>

>> [BCP47<http://tools.ietf.org/**html/draft-davis-t-langtag-**
>> ext-02#ref-BCP47<http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-davis-t-langtag-ext-02#ref-BCP47>
>> >],
>>
> The IETF has liaisons, but not for a sentence or two in a single draft. The
> IETF is open, so I suggest that you invite whoever is interested from
> whoever organization to comment here.

Of course I can point people from the ULI TC to comment on this draft. I was
hoping that since this draft is being put forward mainly by a Unicode TC
(CLDR), that Mark or others on this list who are members of that TC would
engage with the ULI TC to assure coordination of efforts. But I am happy to
do that on my own, and you are right that this is not a question of IETF
liaisons.

> I think you have a good point: The above description should be changed to
> speak about the result of the transformation, not the process itself.
>
>
>

I agree. Mark or Addison, if you need more detailed / different text than
the above, please let me know.

Regards,

Felix

---

From: Mark Davis ☕ <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 13 Jul 2011 07:32:42 -0700

Sorry, I missed this earlier. Will respond.

Mark
*— Il meglio è l’inimico del bene —*

On Tue, Jul 12, 2011 at 00:23, Felix Sasaki <[email-masked]>wrote:

> The current draft states
>
> "Language tags, as defined by [BCP47<http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-davis-t-langtag-ext-02#ref-BCP47>],
> with the Unicode ULI TC http://uli.unicode.org/ , and a clarification in
> the draft.
>
> 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
>> http://unicode.org/repos/cldr/trunk/common/bcp47/calendar.xml. Yoshito
>> has the action to do that, and was able to accelerate it. So please take a
>> look if you have the time.
>>
>> Mark
>>
>>
>>

---

From: Mark Davis ☕ <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 13 Jul 2011 09:30:33 -0700

Mark

On Wed, Jul 13, 2011 at 00:37, Felix Sasaki <[email-masked]>wrote:

>>> the
>> The IETF is open, so I suggest that you invite whoever is interested from
> Of course I can point people from the ULI TC to comment on this draft. I
> was hoping that since this draft is being put forward mainly by a Unicode TC

I would be glad to talk to them about this, and will. I don't anticipate any
problems; structure such as XLIFF is very different, with very different
goals, than the identification of content.

>> speak about the result of the transformation, not the process itself.
The very first paragraph indicates that it is results ("has been
transliterated, etc.") not process. Where there are other parts of the
document that you think need improvement, please let us know.

   for specifying the source language or script of transformed content,
   including content that has been transliterated, transcribed, or
   translated, or in some other way influenced by the source.  It also
   provides for additional information used for identification.

---

From: Felix Sasaki <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 13 Jul 2011 18:51:38 +0200

2011/7/13 Mark Davis ☕ <[email-masked]>

> I would be glad to talk to them about this, and will. I don't anticipate
> any problems; structure such as XLIFF is very different, with very different

Indeed. FYI, I pinged Uwe Stahlschmidt in the meantime, but will leave this
now to you.

Felix

---

From: Mark Davis ☕ <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 13 Jul 2011 12:00:17 -0700

The discussion is continuing on [email-masked] to avoid future cross-posting
(as requested by Martin and others), so anyone interested in the topic can
follow it there.

Mark

> (I have removed [email-masked], to avoid cross-postings.)

...