I wasn't talking about a new code, just a subtag.

The question is which one, and whether it should be registered or should we
just make up something and use it.
בתאריך 28 באוג׳ 2015 07:57,‏ "Jan van Steenbergen" <[email protected]>
כתב:

> Dear all,
>
> The odds for Simple English obtaining an ISO 639-3 code are zilch, because
> these codes are given to languages and Simple English is not a language, at
> least not a language separate from English. It's merely a way of speaking
> and writing it – just like "difficult English", children's English, broken
> English or even Pig Latin are. It doesn't have any rules of its own, no
> separate grammar and no separate word stock, all it does is saying: "Try to
> write in short sentences and avoid difficult words". You can do the same
> thing with any other language as well, which might equally well result in
> Simple German, Simple Rhaeto-Romance or Simple Inuktitut.
>
> The only small change would be applying for an ISO code for Ogden's Basic
> English, which is generally treated as a constructed language. But that
> would be cheating, because the Simple English Wikipedia does not limit
> itself to Ogden's word lists, even though it endorses them. Besides, the
> ISO registration authority is pretty tough nowadays when it comes to
> constructed languages, and I don't think they would accept Basic English.
>
> Best regards,
> Jan van Steenbergen
>
> 2015-08-25 20:25 GMT+02:00 Oliver Stegen <[email protected]>:
>
>> Indeed, that's a problem!
>>
>> Imho, we'll have to deal with the status of Simple English in general.
>> Any chance of successfully applying an ISO code for it? Otherwise, we'll
>> run into more problems like this one
>> <https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Requests_for_new_languages/Wikinews_Simple_English>
>> [1] with new project applications (for example, see Jon Harald's reply
>> under "arguments in favour").
>> While Wikipedia <https://simple.wikipedia.org/wiki/Basic_English> [2]
>> defines Basic English (on which Simple English is based) as constructed
>> language in its own right, that definition doesn't seem to have been
>> accepted widely.
>>
>> If push comes to shove, I'd vote for en-simple. I had actually assumed
>> that that was its encoding used already (based on the URL *simple*.
>> wikipedia.org).
>>
>> Fwiw,
>> Oliver
>>
>> [1]
>> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Requests_for_new_languages/Wikinews_Simple_English
>> [2] https://simple.wikipedia.org/wiki/Basic_English
>>
>> On 25-Aug-15 7:35 PM, Amir E. Aharoni wrote:
>>
>> Hi,
>>
>> A question for the respected language code experts in the audience.
>>
>> Apparently, the Simple English Wikipedia uses "en" as its language code
>> in the HTML lang attribute, etc.
>>
>> I never noticed it until recently, when it started causing various bugs
>> with the ContentTranslation extension of which I am a developer. I somehow
>> assumed that it uses something like "en-simple" without ever checking it,
>> and that assumption was wrong - it's just "en".
>>
>> I believe that the code should be different from what is used by the
>> English Wikipedia, like it is with other wikis in language variants, such
>> as be-tarask.
>>
>> Do you have any suggestions about what code should it be?
>> en-simple?
>> en-x-simple?
>> Something else?
>> Should I register anything new with any standards organization? (If I
>> recall correctly, this was done for be-tarask?)
>> Can I reuse any existing code that would be appropriate?
>> Is it a bad idea in general and it should be just "en"?
>>
>> Thanks!
>>
>> (PS: If you're curious what are the issues, see
>> https://phabricator.wikimedia.org/T110190 )
>>
>> --
>> Amir Elisha Aharoni · אָמִיר אֱלִישָׁע אַהֲרוֹנִי
>> http://aharoni.wordpress.com
>> ‪“We're living in pieces,
>> I want to live in peace.” – T. Moore‬
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Langcom mailing 
>> [email protected]https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/langcom
>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Langcom mailing list
>> [email protected]
>> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/langcom
>>
>>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Langcom mailing list
> [email protected]
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/langcom
>
>
_______________________________________________
Langcom mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/langcom

Reply via email to