El dl 15 de 10 de 2012 a les 11:48 +0200, en/na Mikel L. Forcada va escriure: > AFAIK, you don't get "unknown word" when a word is analysed but not > translated. You get the source-language lemma, which is strange and > undesirable, but that is one opinion. A conservative one, granted, and > supported by practice and a more general concept of "database > consistency" (sorry Fran). Also, I know that Fran has committed a > version that lets the source-language surface form to percolate, which > would alleviate this problem. > > I was just giving an opinion. The whole PMC should decide on whether we > allow untrimmed releases or not. > > Mikel
I think that one of the reasons that I like the requirement is that it develops good senses how the system works. A rigorous discipline to working with data. The people who are most arguing against it are those who don't have development experience. I also have the suspicion that in removing the requirement we would end up with a "sordid, aimless, ugly confusion" of language pair data. Something I'd rather avoid. There is of course nothing to stop people putting out their own releases of language pairs -- probably providing they don't use the Apertium name, so if someone really wants to remove the requirement, then they are more than welcome to go it alone. The rest of us are more than content to have some quality controls. Fran ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Don't let slow site performance ruin your business. Deploy New Relic APM Deploy New Relic app performance management and know exactly what is happening inside your Ruby, Python, PHP, Java, and .NET app Try New Relic at no cost today and get our sweet Data Nerd shirt too! http://p.sf.net/sfu/newrelic-dev2dev _______________________________________________ Apertium-stuff mailing list Apertium-stuff@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/apertium-stuff
