IETF Logo Mail Archive

RE: Another attempt at plain language

Peter Constable <petercon@microsoft.com> Thu, 17 September 2015 15:37 UTC

Return-Path: <petercon@microsoft.com>
X-Original-To: ietf-languages@alvestrand.no
Delivered-To: ietf-languages@alvestrand.no
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mork.alvestrand.no (Postfix) with ESMTP id 995807C5AF5 for <ietf-languages@alvestrand.no>; Thu, 17 Sep 2015 17:37:36 +0200 (CEST)
X-Virus-Scanned: Debian amavisd-new at alvestrand.no
Authentication-Results: mork.alvestrand.no (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=microsoft.com
Received: from mork.alvestrand.no ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (mork.alvestrand.no [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id Vm7t1DeuTEvT for <ietf-languages@alvestrand.no>; Thu, 17 Sep 2015 17:37:35 +0200 (CEST)
X-Greylist: domain auto-whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.8.0
X-Greylist: domain auto-whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.8.0
Received: from na01-by2-obe.outbound.protection.outlook.com (mail-by2on0104.outbound.protection.outlook.com [207.46.100.104]) by mork.alvestrand.no (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 46E1F7C5AF4 for <ietf-languages@alvestrand.no>; Thu, 17 Sep 2015 17:37:35 +0200 (CEST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=microsoft.com; s=selector1; h=From:To:Date:Subject:Message-ID:Content-Type:MIME-Version; bh=nccNM52INrQnzfQL7/6mi3UFL2ty49wMo418UDpt6U8=; b=nZLC/sRseyH3N4nrHRJ3XMLd1LxEAMd+ek1j3ca1VEBHp7yrT0mnLon59yWbDtYD7SOvwP4Hrh0uE/vE/5c/C0yfZTMn9IqQQh2hVbATcZwCD1jpB1ckUNiTid0J3DF7M0qbS7DNjttUdRoBQCBQP4UYyN0BIXAfpoj1B2J6ENI=
Received: from BY2PR0301MB1608.namprd03.prod.outlook.com (10.163.28.26) by BY2PR0301MB1606.namprd03.prod.outlook.com (10.163.28.24) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.1.268.17; Thu, 17 Sep 2015 15:37:27 +0000
Received: from BY2PR0301MB1608.namprd03.prod.outlook.com ([10.163.28.26]) by BY2PR0301MB1608.namprd03.prod.outlook.com ([10.163.28.26]) with mapi id 15.01.0268.017; Thu, 17 Sep 2015 15:37:26 +0000
From: Peter Constable <petercon@microsoft.com>
To: Tobias Bengfort <tobias.bengfort@posteo.de>, "ietf-languages@alvestrand.no" <ietf-languages@alvestrand.no>
Subject: RE: Another attempt at plain language
Thread-Topic: Another attempt at plain language
Thread-Index: AQHQ7MFXsRccRM+zZEqfdyHESsogMZ44w3gAgAP4gWCAAeI8AIACQ+0A
Date: Thu, 17 Sep 2015 15:37:26 +0000
Message-ID: <BY2PR0301MB1608991D14D95CFB869AE60DD55A0@BY2PR0301MB1608.namprd03.prod.outlook.com>
References: <20150911114034.665a7a7059d7ee80bb4d670165c8327d.2d59df3fda.wbe@email03.secureserver.net> <14D8D8B5-2E16-4DFD-879B-1F7542649FA5@evertype.com> <BY2PR0301MB1608D2EACF5DD238D3F9DE4DD55C0@BY2PR0301MB1608.namprd03.prod.outlook.com> <mtasne$g3u$1@ger.gmane.org>
In-Reply-To: <mtasne$g3u$1@ger.gmane.org>
Accept-Language: en-US, en-CA
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
authentication-results: spf=none (sender IP is ) smtp.mailfrom=petercon@microsoft.com;
x-originating-ip: [2001:4898:80e8:1::4ae]
x-microsoft-exchange-diagnostics: 1; BY2PR0301MB1606; 5:bUnMrkCOfUpMcE/lMDGdBdgtvuzMFta58W7T4FLgcI5VAQAIiIO5B29O64SqhZ9TdAnCNVrOVfsFiSKTLywDFNtKSerTa1yfWm5W3FiAOxPlOtLR90WbHkINl82oG+gxK1TM3x7QoZ1197PQjSE5Lg==; 24:h51hpnc9Kqw12NXgUQr1UQAFHAtNuysKiXEHJJhAMOl2PXP807BQKTF9VMwxq0zM8D2noJbLyYc2uA6kqVr1Op51edtEhqBAswq3ylOKlxk=; 20:RHjvE5GA6g6bYQZW1g8xNRuuVJVUjZlBWNuH4EohBD7hiYWw/e5bqb7YQpe8yV/VGhVKo+viRRlcozvvcgwJtA==
x-microsoft-antispam: UriScan:;BCL:0;PCL:0;RULEID:;SRVR:BY2PR0301MB1606;
x-microsoft-antispam-prvs: <BY2PR0301MB1606CB71B140A51B934E30FAD55A0@BY2PR0301MB1606.namprd03.prod.outlook.com>
x-exchange-antispam-report-test: UriScan:;
x-exchange-antispam-report-cfa-test: BCL:0; PCL:0; RULEID:(61425019)(601004)(2401001)(5005006)(8121501046)(520078)(520075)(3002001)(61426019)(61427019); SRVR:BY2PR0301MB1606; BCL:0; PCL:0; RULEID:; SRVR:BY2PR0301MB1606;
x-forefront-prvs: 07025866F6
x-forefront-antispam-report: SFV:NSPM; SFS:(10019020)(6009001)(199003)(189002)(101416001)(2950100001)(74316001)(99286002)(54356999)(19580395003)(87936001)(50986999)(86362001)(2501003)(64706001)(86612001)(5005710100001)(2900100001)(189998001)(106356001)(97736004)(10400500002)(107886002)(5002640100001)(62966003)(33656002)(106116001)(19580405001)(5001860100001)(76176999)(76576001)(105586002)(5003600100002)(81156007)(5001960100002)(10290500002)(5004730100002)(93886004)(40100003)(92566002)(4001540100001)(77156002)(5001830100001)(46102003)(8990500004)(5001770100001)(102836002)(5007970100001)(68736005)(10090500001)(77096005)(122556002)(3826002); DIR:OUT; SFP:1102; SCL:1; SRVR:BY2PR0301MB1606; H:BY2PR0301MB1608.namprd03.prod.outlook.com; FPR:; SPF:None; PTR:InfoNoRecords; A:1; MX:1; LANG:en;
received-spf: None (protection.outlook.com: microsoft.com does not designate permitted sender hosts)
spamdiagnosticoutput: 1:23
spamdiagnosticmetadata: NSPM
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-OriginatorOrg: microsoft.com
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-originalarrivaltime: 17 Sep 2015 15:37:26.0513 (UTC)
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-fromentityheader: Hosted
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-id: 72f988bf-86f1-41af-91ab-2d7cd011db47
X-MS-Exchange-Transport-CrossTenantHeadersStamped: BY2PR0301MB1606
X-BeenThere: ietf-languages@alvestrand.no
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.16
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF Language tag discussions <ietf-languages.alvestrand.no>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://www.alvestrand.no/mailman/options/ietf-languages>, <mailto:ietf-languages-request@alvestrand.no?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.alvestrand.no/pipermail/ietf-languages/>
List-Post: <mailto:ietf-languages@alvestrand.no>
List-Help: <mailto:ietf-languages-request@alvestrand.no?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://www.alvestrand.no/mailman/listinfo/ietf-languages>, <mailto:ietf-languages-request@alvestrand.no?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 17 Sep 2015 15:37:36 -0000

From: Ietf-languages [mailto:ietf-languages-bounces@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 
>> guidelines.

> 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.


Peter

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email