<HTML>
<HEAD>
<TITLE>Re: Pending requests</TITLE>
</HEAD>
<BODY>
<FONT FACE="Calibri, Verdana, Helvetica, Arial"><SPAN STYLE='font-size:11pt'><BR>
Den 2015-11-26 18:31, skrev "Michael Everson" <<a href="everson@evertype.com">everson@evertype.com</a>>:<BR>
<BR>
<FONT COLOR="#0000FF">> On 26 Nov 2015, at 17:22, Kent Karlsson <<a href="kent.karlsson14@telia.com">kent.karlsson14@telia.com</a>> wrote:
><BR>
>> Hmm, not sure I (as a non-native user of English) would regard the <BR>
>> (supposedly) "Basic" version to be simpler in any way than the “ordinary" <BR>
>> version. I would regard the "Basic" version as strange, and in several places <BR>
>> *harder* to understand than the "ordinary" version.
> Sure. That might be a <BR>
> drawback to Basic English. Different types of texts would require different <BR>
> kinds of substitutions and circumlocutions. But we aren’t judging Basic <BR>
> English. We’re identifying it with a subtag.
<BR>
Yes, but as Mark (and, I think, Shawn) say: this is of very marginal use,<BR>
and should be at very low priority, and could wait, perhaps indefinitely.<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
</FONT>Den 2015-11-26 19:34, skrev "Mark Davis" <<a href="mark@macchiato.com">mark@macchiato.com</a>>:<BR>
<BR>
> At this point, I've pretty much given up on this process. Someone comes in<BR>
> with a legitimate need for variant that would be deployed on wikipedia (a<BR>
> pretty darn'd high-volume site), and be generally useful. What happens?<BR>
> This gets sidetracked into promoting an obscure variant that will get vanishingly<BR>
> small usage.<BR>
<BR>
With regard to wpsimple, I don't like it, since it is (more or less) for Wikipedia only<BR>
(and then only for one or a few languages); even though Wikipedia is "a pretty<BR>
darn'd high-volume site".<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
[Regarding the CEFR scheme]<BR>
Den 2015-11-26 18:33, skrev "Michael Everson" <<a href="everson@evertype.com">everson@evertype.com</a>>:<BR>
<BR>
<FONT COLOR="#0000FE">> This is a relatively novel and relatively unknown scheme, and is about speaker <BR>
> competence and confidence, not about classification of textual content. A <BR>
> given text may be understood at a B1 or C2 level, but the text would be the <BR>
> same. I would not favour this approach.
<BR>
It's not particularly novel (it dates back to 1991, though it has been revised since).<BR>
Nor is it particularly unknown. Especially not in Europe, but it is spreading around<BR>
the world (ok, the latter is novel, and it is far from completely world-wide). But<BR>
of the systems I have seen, it seems to be the only one with potential to become<BR>
used world-wide in reasonable near-time.<BR>
<BR>
"not about classification of textual [or audio/video] content": Formally you <BR>
may be right. But:<BR>
1) It can be interpreted as referring to content (and regularly is,<BR>
but so far mostly for language education material, end then still be gradually<BR>
building vocabulary, grammar, spelling, pronunciation, to the next level); there<BR>
is of course no exactness here.<BR>
2) Is there another widely recognised scheme for referring explicitly to level<BR>
of the content (text/audio/video)? "We" should not invent our own scheme.<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
/Kent K<BR>
</FONT></SPAN></FONT>
</BODY>
</HTML>