Shawn.Steele at microsoft.com
Mon Nov 30 23:57:02 CET 2015
> The audience for the Wikipedia is pretty large.
Irrelevant, none of them will be using an interchangeable tag, they'll be using whatever tag Wikipedia provides them. (Like simple appears to work today).
> and the latter cause them problems.
What problems does simple.wikipedia.org cause? Will en-(wp)wimple.wikipedia.org solve those problems? (how do they know).
> It might, but it could be used by anybody claiming “simplicity” that had nothing to do with the well-defined language Wikipedia uses. Why isn’t that a problem?
Why would it be a problem? Is it really well defined? "Every day, Simple English changes" - Their how to write simple English page seems to me to be more like a guide to writing easy-to-read content rather than a definition of a language....
... and so far as that goes, they say "Use Basic English vocabulary and shorter sentences. This allows people to understand normally complex terms or phrases." In which case an -ogdenbe would suffice (though if I were them I'd still want -simple as it would be more helpful for the web as a whole).
FWIW: Their real-world example contains an unintelligible to me sentence (last of the first paragraph.) The original isn't too clear either, but the simple version is a total non-sequitur.
More information about the Ietf-languages