From: Alexey Melnikov (alexey.melnikov-usefor@isode.com)
Date: Wed Jun 09 2004 - 05:15:36 CDT
Bruce Lilly wrote:
>Eivind Tagseth wrote:
>
>
>>* Matthias Andree <ma@dt.e-technik.uni-dortmund.de> [2004-06-05 15:47:01 +0200]:
>>
>>
>>>The other question is if a newsreader should localize headers,
>>>particularly if the headers are editable in raw form. I believe it
>>>shouldn't or it should at least offer an option (button, whatever) in a
>>>PROMINENT location to show the headers as they are going to be sent so
>>>the skilled user can check what his newsreader does, without requiring
>>>support or test postings.
>>>
>>>
>>No, I agree, a newsreader should not localize the content of an unstructured
>>header. This illustrates the problems of enforcing semi-structure into
>>unstructured content.
>>
>>
>
>The field name is a protocol element ("name") not "text" [see RFCs 1958 and 2277]
>and therefore isn't (or shouldn't be) subject to localization; only "text" has a
>language; protocol elements do not.
>
>Field body content of an unstructured field, however, *is* "text" and therefore does
>have an associated language (RFC 2277). It is therefore not unreasonable to expect
>that at some time, it may be possible to provide machine translation for the benefit of
>users (e.g. babelfish -- and I would add that that technology has progressed rapidly
>in the past 7+ years that this WG has been active, and there is no reason to preclude
>the possibility w.r.t. this group's standard(s)).
>
>Yes, it would be nice for software that provides translation (or decoding of encoded-
>words, etc.) to also provide an option to display content as it will be transferred
>"on-the-wire", but that's really a user-interface issue that ought to be outside of
>our scope ("Internet standards normally do not specify the behavior of user
>interfaces" -- RFC 3798).
>
>Certainly we can envision difficulties with machine translation, but that should really
>be outside of the scope of our discussion -- we should be dealing with format and
>protocol issues and not user interface and presentation issues. Would the Chair
>care to make a ruling on the scope of such discussions?
>
Yes, general discussion about machine translation is outside of the
scope for the USEAGE document (and strictly outside the scope for the
USEFOR).
However, if somebody is willing to suggest a *short* paragraph
describing issues with automatic translation of prefixes, this MAY be
included in USEAGE.
Alexey