El 2020-05-08 15:50, Tino Didriksen escribió:
For khannatanmai's GSoC project, secondary tags will be implemented in
a backwards compatible manner. That it in itself indisputable. But,
there is a question of how the initial batch of secondary tags should
look.
I feel they should be in the form of <sf:cdefg>, as in a very short
textual lower-case prefix, followed by :, followed by whatever value
there is. Or even an upper-case prefix, as in <S:cdefg> or <SF:cdefg>.
spectie wants symbol prefixes in the form of <%:cdefg>.
[snip]
From a technical and scientific basis, textual prefixes are just
better. And yet, spectie wants symbol prefixes because he likes them.
I disagree. Hence, this mail asking for opinions.
Do you language developers actually prefer symbol prefixes?
Tino misrepresented me slightly. I never proposed using the pound sign.
My proposal was for:
отец<n><sg><gen><@subj><§agent><%:отца><:human><:kin><!:aef31><!:fcd32>
If we have to have these "secondary tags"... which I have yet to be
completely convinced of,
I would like to have them be readable and not clutter the stream with
unnecessary
verbosity. There are a lot of rule-based formalisms out there that are
impossible to read,
having been dreamt up by people who don't actually spend a lot of time
writing language
data, and I would like to avoid that happening with Apertium.
Again, and again I want to see a translation and a linguistic
motivation. In an _actual_
language pair, not in someone's imagination.
We have a lot of modules that have been made but not reached use in a
released pair,
so I don't see how this should be different.
Fran
_______________________________________________
Apertium-stuff mailing list
Apertium-stuff@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/apertium-stuff
