Registration request: "mis" comment clarifying meaning

[Michael Everson]

At 10:44 -0700 2007-05-11, Addison Phillips wrote:

>>He's changed his comment request from "A collection of languages 
>>which don't belong to any other collection" to "A collection of 
>>unrelated languages which don't belong to any other ISO 639 
>>collection"
>
>It's his prerogative as an the requester. May I assume that you 
>rejected the previous request?

Who knows? ;-) It is not a linguistic issue, it is a meta-issue. That 
is why I asked John Cowan to look for consensus aye or nay and report 
back. He didn't. My initial view was toward rejection; John didn't 
report consensus either way. (Also there was the WG2 meeting in 
Frankfurt and preparing the 10646 ballots which took my attention 
toward the end of that period.)

>>And we have to spend another fortnight arguing about this?
>
>There is no requirement that we argue. There is a requirement that 
>you give the request two weeks

There was argument the last time.

>And also that Frank may modify his request if you reject an earlier request:

Whee! Then it can go on forever and ever and ever...

>>Is "mis" a subtag? Or is it a tag?
>
>It is a subtag:
>
>--
>    Type:                                language
>    Subtag:                              mis
>--

I saw that he wrote "Subtag". :-L

>Of course, you can reject said requests. However, you must cite the 
>reason on the list. And you have to put up with non-abusive attempts 
>to address your objections by submitting a new request. Much of this 
>is actually at your discretion.

So far I think that this comment is out of scope and is something 
that should be done either in the RFC or on the ISO 639 side. I see 
that Kent agrees with that assessment.
-- 
Michael Everson * http://www.evertype.com