"mis" update review request

[Mark Davis]

No, it isn't. We have explicitly at least one code, zxx, that clearly and
specifically does not apply to content containing human languages. We have
another code "und" which applies to content that may or may not contain
human languages. Now, clearly we only want a very small set of codes like
this, and may decide that "und" and "zxx" are the only codes that should
behave in that way; but it is not an out of scope question.

What would be out of scope would be codes for different kinds of binaries
(eg JPEG) or codes for different kinds of programming languages (JAVA, CPP).

Mark

On 4/16/07, Doug Ewell <dewell at adelphia.net> wrote:
>
> John Cowan <cowan at ccil dot org> wrote:
>
> >> Number two, if we absolutely MUST change this now, in what sense
> >> would variant subtags under "art" not fit the bill?
> >
> > "art" is for artificial human languages like Esperanto.  People don't
> > write novels in Java or essays in Cobol.
>
> Thus leading inevitably back to Point Number One: this is out of scope.
>
> --
> Doug Ewell  *  Fullerton, California, USA  *  RFC 4645  *  UTN #14
> http://users.adelphia.net/~dewell/
> http://www1.ietf.org/html.charters/ltru-charter.html
> http://www.alvestrand.no/mailman/listinfo/ietf-languages
>
> _______________________________________________
> Ietf-languages mailing list
> Ietf-languages at alvestrand.no
> http://www.alvestrand.no/mailman/listinfo/ietf-languages
>



-- 
Mark
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.alvestrand.no/pipermail/ietf-languages/attachments/20070417/b7b2ab65/attachment.html