ICANN ICANN Email List Archives


<<< Chronological Index >>>    <<< Thread Index >>>

RE: [gnso.secretariat@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx: ICANN Draft Translation Programme open for public comment]

  • To: <translation-programme@xxxxxxxxx>
  • Subject: RE: [gnso.secretariat@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx: ICANN Draft Translation Programme open for public comment]
  • From: CE Whitehead <cewcathar@xxxxxxxxxxx>
  • Date: Sat, 1 Mar 2008 13:18:10 -0500

I sort of oppose publishing a particular machine translation online (although 
machine translations have improved some).   When a human translation is not 
available, would simply providing a link to a free machine translator--rather 
than a machine translation of perhaps poor quality--not be better?  Or would 
that be too much of a burden on the reader?  (I note that the various machine 
translators have probably made use of one another's algorithms, to the point 
that the translations produced by the various machine translators available at 
say one or another are the same) Regarding interpretations for meetings  (this 
is not perhaps as relevant here)P.18:Europe will use English only (really???  
with France, Luxembourg, Belgium, Switzerland and a proximity to N. Africa?? 
and ICANN is going to make N. America provide French?--Quebec will be in 
attendance then--but I do support including French in N. America which is where 
I am).
I'll look at this draft in more detail when I get a chance, and let you know if 
I have other comments.--C. E. Whiteheadcewcathar@xxxxxxxxxxx 
Je suis contre la publication en-ligne d'une traduction automatique 
particuliere (meme que ces traductions se sont actuellement ameliorees).
Au cas ou une traduction faite a la main n'est pas disponible, vaut-il mieux 
peut-etre de faire disponible seulement un lien a une service de traduction 
automatique (et gratuite) en-ligne, au lieu de faire disponible une traduction 
de moyenne qualite?? Ou pire?  Ou sera-t-il trop de peine pour le lecteur si 
l'on fait cela?
En plus, p. 18;
L'EU (y inclus les pays suivants:  la France, le Luxembourg, la Belgique, la 
Suisse, et en plus, il y a, tout proche, l'Afrique du Nord?) n'a pas besoin de 
plus qu'une seule langue pour ses reunions??
Je vais etudier le document un peu plus et, si j'ai plus de commentaire . . . 
Merci d'avance,
C. E. Whitehead
> > Stephane Bortzmeyer wrote:> > > Since this draft document, open to 
> > comments, talks a lot about> > human languages, I feel it is relevant 
> > here.> > 
> > http://icann.org/translations/draft-translation-programme-v2.2-13feb08-en_EN.pdf>
> >  > 127 KB PDF, visible with Acroreader 8.1.2 on W2K without crash,> I 
> > didn't look for an accessible non-Proprietary Document Format. > > > Do 
> > note that the plan for language identifiers, in the current> > version, is 
> > ISO 639 (with just ISO 3166 country codes), not BCP 47 :-(> > Apparently 
> > they use locale indentifiers. After a somewhat obscure > procedure they 
> > arrived at 11 languages for most of their purposes,> likely they don't need 
> > RFC 4646 tags for this job. On the bright> side, no ECMA 376 numbers ;-) 
> > Just propose RFC 4646 language tags> if you think it is important, there is 
> > a public comment forum.> > Frank> > 
> > _______________________________________________> Ietf-languages mailing 
> > list> Ietf-languages@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> 
> > http://www.alvestrand.no/mailman/listinfo/ietf-languages

<<< Chronological Index >>>    <<< Thread Index >>>

Privacy Policy | Terms of Service | Cookies Policy