2015/10/27 3:10 "Michael Everson" <everson@evertype.com>:

“Basic English” is a well-defined language form, but “simple” is not. That’s one problem.

I’m the IANA subtag registrar, if you didn’t know it. Maybe “wpsimple” would be precise enough. Are there other Simple Wikipedias?

> On 25 Oct 2015, at 09:46, Amir E. Aharoni <amir.aharoni@mail.huji.ac.il> wrote:
>
> Problem: The Simple English Wikipedia uses "simple" for the domain ( simple.wikipedia.org ) and "en" for its language. This is a problem because:
> * The domain is different from the language code.
> * The language code is the same as in the English Wikipedia.
>
> These two problems definitely create several issues for the ContentTranslation extension and possibly other components. It's possible to work around them, but it's better to straighten things out by changing the language code.
>
> The last time I tried to bring this up some people thought that I am proposing to create a new top-level ISO 639-3 language code for it, but this is definitely not my intention. Rather, I suggest to go forward with something like "en-simple". The language in question is a variant of another one, so a subtag makes sense, but I'd love it to be standardized.
>
> Should it be proposed as a new entry to the IANA language subtag registry? I couldn't find anything appropriate at http://www.iana.org/assignments/language-subtag-registry/language-subtag-registry and I am not familiar with the proposal process.
>
> Is "en-simple" a good suggestion? Or should be something like "en-wpsimple", like "en-oxendict" (an actually registered variant of Oxford English dictionary)?
>
> If I recall correctly, Wikipedians already got be-tarask registered successfully,

Because the orthography was well-defined.

> so this sounds possible to do, but I'd love your advice before going forward.

Michael
_______________________________________________
Langcom mailing list
Langcom@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/langcom