"mis" update review request

[Frank Ellermann]

Peter Constable wrote:

>> However, your using "pet scenario" to characterize something that I
>> and many others consider "important scenario", like language detection,
>> is unnecessary.

> I was not referring to tasks like language detection. I was referring
> to cases like "content is programming code which I perceive to be in
> some way linguistic". Such individual perceptions are entirely valid
> as just that "individual perceptions" but have no direct connection
> to the concepts coded in ISO 639 and should not be confused with them.

[Quote marks edited by me, keeping LTRU on the CC list, but actually I
 think this can be solved on the subtag review list under BCP 47 rules.]

I said "zxx for code is barbaric" based on its description "no linguistic
content".  While I agree that this is an "individual perception" and not
covered by BCP 47 I also propose that we need a short comment in the
"zxx" record stating that this tag can be used for code.  The description
"no linguistic content" is misleading in the case of code.

Frank