Hi,
Trying to revive this discussion, because the previous one got stuck.
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-reg... 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, so this sounds possible to do, but I'd love your advice before going forward.
Thank you!
-- Amir Elisha Aharoni · אָמִיר אֱלִישָׁע אַהֲרוֹנִי http://aharoni.wordpress.com “We're living in pieces, I want to live in peace.” – T. Moore
Hi, getting en-simple registered appears to me to be the most appealing way to go. Purodha
On 25.10.2015 14:46, Amir E. Aharoni wrote:
Hi,
Trying to revive this discussion, because the previous one got stuck.
Problem: The Simple English Wikipedia uses "simple" for the domain ( simple.wikipedia.org [1] ) 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. Its possible to work around them, but its 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 Id love it to be standardized.
Should it be proposed as a new entry to the IANA language subtag registry? I couldnt find anything appropriate at
http://www.iana.org/assignments/language-subtag-registry/language-subtag-reg... [2] 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, so this sounds possible to do, but Id love your advice before going forward.
Thank you!
-- Amir Elisha Aharoni · אָמִיר אֱלִישָׁע אַהֲרוֹנִי http://aharoni.wordpress.com [3] “Were living in pieces, I want to live in peace.” – T. Moore
Links:
[1] http://simple.wikipedia.org [2]
http://www.iana.org/assignments/language-subtag-registry/language-subtag-reg... [3] http://aharoni.wordpress.com
On 26 Oct 2015, at 03:31, Purodha Blissenbach purodha@blissenbach.org wrote:
Hi, getting en-simple registered appears to me to be the most appealing way to go.
The Reviewer, whose Word is Law, thinks that “simple” is too vague.
Michael
“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-reg... 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
2015-10-26 21:10 GMT+02:00 Michael Everson everson@evertype.com:
“Basic English” is a well-defined language form, but “simple” is not.
That’s one problem.
Here is the best definition I'm aware of: https://simple.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:How_to_write_Simple_English_page...
It's a mix of Basic English, VOA Special English, and some more guidelines, and like everything in Wikipedia it's not set in stone.
I guess that the Simple Enlgish Wikipeia is the only place where this set of rules is used. Can that be a problem? If it is, then maybe it can be something en-x-simple, although it's uglyish for a domain.
I’m the IANA subtag registrar, if you didn’t know it.
I didn't!
Maybe “wpsimple” would be precise enough. Are there other Simple
Wikipedias?
Not at the moment. There is a certain possibility of this happening in the future.
I'd like to discuss more on the IANA subtag, but do you happen to know if the ietf-languages@iana.org mailing list still operating or not? As I seems to be unable to subscribe it. 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-reg... 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