Another attempt at plain language
petercon at microsoft.com
Thu Sep 17 17:37:26 CEST 2015
From: Ietf-languages [mailto:ietf-languages-bounces at alvestrand.no] On Behalf Of Tobias Bengfort
>> I agree. Language tags should be descriptions of linguistic aspects of
>> the content, not assertions of conformance to somebody's content
> I disagree. The subtag would not be used to claim conformance with accessibility guidelines, but is helpful for meeting the requirements.
If the primary purpose is to be an aid in claiming conformance with somebody's content guidelines, then that is out of scope for language tags. If the primary purpose is to describe some linguistic aspect of content, and that subsequently proves to be useful as an aid in claiming conformance with some guidelines, then fine.
> The requirement in this case is to either have the content in simple language or (and this is the important part) to reference a version of the content in simple language.
We still need some characterization of "simple" so that it's clear when it can be used appropriately, and I think we need to understand if there is only one notion of "simple" (or, more generally, "controlled language") or several according to different usage scenarios.
More information about the Ietf-languages