[Ltru] Re: "mis" update review request

[Peter Constable]

I continue to see comments in this thread in which people are trying to stretch the semantic of mis or zxx or und to cover some pet scenario. As long as we keep stretching these to mean concepts that are slightly (or entirely) different from what they were intended to be - semantics that IMO are fairly straight forward once stated - then we're going to continue debating what that should mean, and that portends that users will *never understand our intent and use them consistently.

We should simply take them for what they are. If we need concepts that are different, then we can consider identifiers to represent those concepts.


Peter
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.alvestrand.no/pipermail/ietf-languages/attachments/20070417/b1974a93/attachment.html