kent.karlsson14 at telia.com
Thu Nov 26 22:30:52 CET 2015
Den 2015-11-26 18:31, skrev "Michael Everson" <everson at evertype.com>:
> On 26 Nov 2015, at 17:22, Kent Karlsson <kent.karlsson14 at telia.com> wrote: >
>> Hmm, not sure I (as a non-native user of English) would regard the
>> (supposedly) "Basic" version to be simpler in any way than the “ordinary"
>> version. I would regard the "Basic" version as strange, and in several places
>> *harder* to understand than the "ordinary" version. > Sure. That might be a
> drawback to Basic English. Different types of texts would require different
> kinds of substitutions and circumlocutions. But we aren’t judging Basic
> English. We’re identifying it with a subtag.
Yes, but as Mark (and, I think, Shawn) say: this is of very marginal use,
and should be at very low priority, and could wait, perhaps indefinitely.
Den 2015-11-26 19:34, skrev "Mark Davis" <mark at macchiato.com>:
> At this point, I've pretty much given up on this process. Someone comes in
> with a legitimate need for variant that would be deployed on wikipedia (a
> pretty darn'd high-volume site), and be generally useful. What happens?
> This gets sidetracked into promoting an obscure variant that will get
> small usage.
With regard to wpsimple, I don't like it, since it is (more or less) for
(and then only for one or a few languages); even though Wikipedia is "a
darn'd high-volume site".
[Regarding the CEFR scheme]
Den 2015-11-26 18:33, skrev "Michael Everson" <everson at evertype.com>:
> This is a relatively novel and relatively unknown scheme, and is about speaker
> competence and confidence, not about classification of textual content. A
> given text may be understood at a B1 or C2 level, but the text would be the
> same. I would not favour this approach.
It's not particularly novel (it dates back to 1991, though it has been
Nor is it particularly unknown. Especially not in Europe, but it is
the world (ok, the latter is novel, and it is far from completely
of the systems I have seen, it seems to be the only one with potential to
used world-wide in reasonable near-time.
"not about classification of textual [or audio/video] content": Formally you
may be right. But:
1) It can be interpreted as referring to content (and regularly is,
but so far mostly for language education material, end then still be
building vocabulary, grammar, spelling, pronunciation, to the next level);
is of course no exactness here.
2) Is there another widely recognised scheme for referring explicitly to
of the content (text/audio/video)? "We" should not invent our own scheme.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the Ietf-languages