Registration request: "mis" comment clarifying meaning
petercon at microsoft.com
Fri May 11 23:40:02 CEST 2007
Just a heads up:
The ISO 639 JAC has been discussing 'mis' and it's likely that some change will be made to clarify the intended purpose, including a change to the name property. So, it probably makes sense to hold off any changes for this ID in the LSTR.
From: ietf-languages-bounces at alvestrand.no [mailto:ietf-languages-bounces at alvestrand.no] On Behalf Of Michael Everson
Sent: Friday, May 11, 2007 12:26 PM
To: ietf-languages at alvestrand.no
Subject: Re: Registration request: "mis" comment clarifying meaning
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
>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
Ietf-languages mailing list
Ietf-languages at alvestrand.no
More information about the Ietf-languages