Language Subtag Registration -- "wpsimple"

[Mark Davis ☕️]

Good point. I agree that 'wpsimple' is kinda lame. Either:

   1. we'll end up with a profusion of simples (-sirisimp, -ibmsimpl, ...),
   because their isn't any reason to discriminate, or
   2. everyone will end up using 'wpsimple' as plain 'simple' no matter
   what the definition in the subtag registry is, because the registration
   process is pretty broken.


Mark

On Sat, Oct 31, 2015 at 3:22 AM, Peter Constable <petercon at microsoft.com>
wrote:

> The request isn't for "simple"; it's for "wpsimple". That's what I'm
> commenting on.
>
> I can understand what the basic intent would be of de-simple and fr-simple
> (though there's a side discussion as to whether "simple language" is really
> that simple). But for de-wpsimple and fr-wpsimple, the intent of "wpsimple"
> would be different in each case, the only real commonality being the "wp"
> part.
>
>
> Peter
>
>
> Sent from my IBM 3277/APL
> ------------------------------
> From: Mark Davis ☕️ <mark at macchiato.com>
> Sent: ‎10/‎30/‎2015 19:01
> To: Peter Constable <petercon at microsoft.com>
> Cc: Michael Everson <everson at evertype.com>; ietflang IETF Languages
> Discussion <ietf-languages at iana.org>; amir.aharoni at mail.huji.ac.il
>
> Subject: Re: Language Subtag Registration -- "wpsimple"
>
>
>
> Mark
>
> On Fri, Oct 30, 2015 at 3:21 PM, Peter Constable <petercon at microsoft.com>
> wrote:
>
>> There is enough of a conventional understanding of what “de” means to
>> make it useful in public interchange. A variant subtag, inherently, is
>> denoting something narrower, with an even greater level of specificity
>> implied. If there isn’t greater specificity, then you don’t have a useful
>> variant subtag.
>>
>
> ​It *is* more specific, and *is* useful. "de-simple" is clearly intended
> to be a simple form of "de". "fr-simple" is intended to be simple form of
> "fr", etc.​
>
>
>>
>>
>> That’s all fundamentals about subtags generally. Now let’s consider the
>> kinds of greater specificity that can be useful in a generic variant
>> subtag. In the case of, say, “1900”, the tag implicitly has a clear
>> semantic that can potentially be applied to any language — it’s pretty
>> obvious that this would denote some language-related conventions that are
>> somehow associated with the year 1900.
>>
>>
>>
>> But in this case, the proposed subtag is intended to denote some other
>> kind of specificity. It’s a specificity that can make sense when described
>> in terms of a particular language. But to make it generic across languages,
>> the only way to have it remain meaningful is to identify some common point
>> of reference that can be applied across languages.
>>
>>
>>
>> You could say, Well, it means whatever Wikipedia decides it wants it to
>> mean.
>>
>
> ​I didn't say that; I think you may have quickly skimmed what I said. What
> I believe is that having this level of specificity would be sufficient for
> the majority of the people that would need this tag. They would want to
> mark versions of content as simpler than others.
>
> constable.com/fr-simple/....
> vs
> constable.com/fr/...
> ​
>
>
>> But, is that really what we’d want to do? Would we want to accept
>> “ibmsimple” or “sirisimple”? Besides cherry-picking
>> products/applications/organizations we’d allow to have such tags, are these
>> tags that are really useful in public interchange?
>>
>
> ​The only reason IBM would need "ibmsimple", or rather "fr-simple-ibm666"
> for some IBM standard, is if they had multiple "simple" versions.
>
>>
>>
>> I really think we should register a variant subtag in this case if it can
>> be described as a specific variant of a particular language without
>> reference to any single application, and if that’s a variant that has
>> potential use beyond a single application.
>>
>
> ​That just promotes a needless proliferation of subtags, to no
> particularly good end.​
>
> ​One should keep simple things simple.​
>
>
>>
>>
>>
>> Peter
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> *From:* mark.edward.davis at gmail.com [mailto:mark.edward.davis at gmail.com] *On
>> Behalf Of *Mark Davis ??
>> *Sent:* Friday, October 30, 2015 10:07 AM
>> *To:* Peter Constable <petercon at microsoft.com>
>> *Cc:* Michael Everson <everson at evertype.com>; ietflang IETF Languages
>> Discussion <ietf-languages at iana.org>; amir.aharoni at mail.huji.ac.il
>>
>> *Subject:* Re: Language Subtag Registration -- "wpsimple"
>>
>>
>>
>> I think the opposite. We don't fully specify what "de" means when coming
>> from any of thousands of sources, yet is it quite useful. Overspecification
>> makes the system *less* useful rather than *more* useful.
>>
>>
>>
>> de-simple would be perfectly meaningful, and mark some simplified version
>> of de. Anyone with a website that needs two versions, ordinary and simple,
>> could use that.
>>
>>
>>
>> IF it became necessary to have further qualifications, those could be
>> added:
>>
>>
>>
>> de-simple-din666
>>
>> or
>>
>> de-simple-wikiped
>>
>>
>>
>> The advantage of this system is that a consumer of the tag can use the
>> standard progressive truncation and get something that is more likely to be
>> useful for the user.
>>
>>
>>
>> I agree with Michael that this is a common enough need to have a
>> standardized tag. A private use tag for a common need just makes everyone's
>> lives more complicated.
>>
>>
>> Mark
>>
>>
>>
>> On Fri, Oct 30, 2015 at 8:22 AM, Peter Constable <petercon at microsoft.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>> I think that generalization would not be helpful. Once you do that, then
>> foo-wpsimple becomes available for anybody to use with absolutely no
>> convention as to what "wpsimple" is supposed to mean, making it basically
>> useless except in a private context.
>>
>>
>> Peter
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Ietf-languages [mailto:ietf-languages-bounces at alvestrand.no] On
>> Behalf Of Michael Everson
>>
>> Sent: Friday, October 30, 2015 6:07 AM
>> To: ietflang IETF Languages Discussion <ietf-languages at iana.org>
>> Cc: amir.aharoni at mail.huji.ac.il
>> Subject: Re: Language Subtag Registration -- "wpsimple"
>>
>> On 30 Oct 2015, at 01:54, Peter Constable <petercon at microsoft.com> wrote:
>> >
>> > We should have variant subtags that refer to a particular variety. I
>> don't mind if that variety happens to be one associated with a particular
>> organization or application, so long as it has potential utility beyond
>> that organization or application.
>>
>> I have already said that wpsimple would be extensible to other Wikimedia
>> Foundation variants.
>>
>> Michael
>> _______________________________________________
>> Ietf-languages mailing list
>> Ietf-languages at alvestrand.no
>> http://www.alvestrand.no/mailman/listinfo/ietf-languages
>> _______________________________________________
>> Ietf-languages mailing list
>> Ietf-languages at alvestrand.no
>> http://www.alvestrand.no/mailman/listinfo/ietf-languages
>>
>>
>>
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://www.alvestrand.no/pipermail/ietf-languages/attachments/20151031/4ce7bff7/attachment-0001.html>