Registration request: "mis" comment clarifying meaning

[Michael Everson]

In my opinion it is the business of ISO 639 to define or clarify the 
meaning of its three-letter tags. It is not our business to do so.

I volunteered John Cowan to be Consensus Taker for this, but have not 
heard from him. However, it seems out of scope to me and I think the 
request should be rejected.


At 18:38 +0200 2007-05-11, Frank Ellermann wrote:
>Hi,
>
>I've posted the last update of the "mis" template in
><http://article.gmane.org/gmane.ietf.languages/4448/raw>
>about four weeks ago.  The discussion about it ended,
>and the latest 4646bis draft covers "mis" (among other
>obscure language tags) in section 4.1 point 4 as #5:
>
>http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-ltru-4646bis-05#page-46
>
>In essence it says "SHOULD NOT be used" and matches
>the proposed comment, see below.
>
>Frank
>
>~~~ cut ~~~
>LANGUAGE SUBTAG REGISTRATION FORM
>1. Name of requester:                   Frank Ellermann
>2. E-mail address of requester:         nobody at xyzzy.claranet.de
>3. Record Requested:
>
>    Type:                                language
>    Subtag:                              mis
>    Description:                         Miscellaneous Languages
>    Comments:                            A collection of unrelated languages
>                                         which don't belong to any other
>                                         ISO 639 collection
>
>4. Intended meaning of the subtag:      n/a (no change)
>5. Reference to published description
>    of the language (book or article):
>                         http://permalink.gmane.org/gmane.ietf.ltru/7478
>                         http://www.sil.org/ISO639-3/scope.asp#C
>6. Any other relevant information:      n/a (comment added)
>
>
>_______________________________________________
>Ietf-languages mailing list
>Ietf-languages at alvestrand.no
>http://www.alvestrand.no/mailman/listinfo/ietf-languages


-- 
Michael Everson * http://www.evertype.com