Well, the obvious answer is yes, because every concept we deal with is not absolutely precise: the boundaries between languages and dialects certainly aren't, and "en-US" encompasses usage of both Teddy Kennedy and Jessica Simpson. So there is always some amount of leeway in IDs.
<br><br>I think the better way to look at it is as a matter of degree; that some proposals are so vague as to be not operationally useful for interchange: "legal", in what jurisdiction? "simple", compared to what? etc.
<br><br>Mark<br><br><div><span class="gmail_quote">On 12/20/06, <b class="gmail_sendername">Peter Constable</b> <<a href="mailto:petercon@microsoft.com">petercon@microsoft.com</a>> wrote:</span><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;">
> From: <a href="mailto:ietf-languages-bounces@alvestrand.no">ietf-languages-bounces@alvestrand.no</a> [mailto:<a href="mailto:ietf-languages-">ietf-languages-</a><br>> <a href="mailto:bounces@alvestrand.no">bounces@alvestrand.no
</a>] On Behalf Of Doug Ewell<br><br><br>> Unless you have clear, interoperable definitions for concepts like<br>> "legal" and "technical" and "plain,"<br><br>I wonder: is it possible to have interoperability using an ID for an intentionally vague concept,
e.g. "legal" where there is room for leeway in how a user might want to contrast that with something else?<br><br><br><br>Peter Constable<br><br>_______________________________________________<br>Ietf-languages mailing list
<br><a href="mailto:Ietf-languages@alvestrand.no">Ietf-languages@alvestrand.no</a><br><a href="http://www.alvestrand.no/mailman/listinfo/ietf-languages">http://www.alvestrand.no/mailman/listinfo/ietf-languages</a><br><br>
<br></blockquote></div><br>