[Ltru] Re: "mis" update review request

[Mark Davis]

As long as "what they are" means any reasonable interpretation given by a
reading of the standards involved, I'm in complete agreement. If "what they
are" means anything outside of the text of the standard, I'd disagree.

That being said, I recognize that broadening 'mis' would be a change from
the current standard, and while allowable, as I said I'm willing to give up
on that. (However, your using "pet scenario" to characterize something that
I and many others consider "important scenario", like language detection, is
unnecessary.)

Mark

On 4/17/07, Peter Constable <petercon at microsoft.com> wrote:
>
>  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
>
> _______________________________________________
> Ltru mailing list
> Ltru at ietf.org
> https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ltru
>
>


-- 
Mark
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.alvestrand.no/pipermail/ietf-languages/attachments/20070417/07330737/attachment.html