<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN">
<HTML xmlns="http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40" xmlns:v =
"urn:schemas-microsoft-com:vml" xmlns:o =
"urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" xmlns:w =
"urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:word" xmlns:x =
"urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:excel" xmlns:p =
"urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:powerpoint" xmlns:a =
"urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:access" xmlns:dt =
"uuid:C2F41010-65B3-11d1-A29F-00AA00C14882" xmlns:s =
"uuid:BDC6E3F0-6DA3-11d1-A2A3-00AA00C14882" xmlns:rs =
"urn:schemas-microsoft-com:rowset" xmlns:z = "#RowsetSchema" xmlns:b =
"urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:publisher" xmlns:ss =
"urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:spreadsheet" xmlns:c =
"urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:component:spreadsheet" xmlns:oa =
"urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:activation" xmlns:html =
"http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40" xmlns:q =
"http://schemas.xmlsoap.org/soap/envelope/" XMLNS:D = "DAV:" xmlns:x2 =
"http://schemas.microsoft.com/office/excel/2003/xml" xmlns:ois =
"http://schemas.microsoft.com/sharepoint/soap/ois/" xmlns:dir =
"http://schemas.microsoft.com/sharepoint/soap/directory/" xmlns:ds =
"http://www.w3.org/2000/09/xmldsig#" xmlns:dsp =
"http://schemas.microsoft.com/sharepoint/dsp" xmlns:udc =
"http://schemas.microsoft.com/data/udc" xmlns:xsd =
"http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema" xmlns:sps =
"http://schemas.microsoft.com/sharepoint/soap/" xmlns:xsi =
"http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema-instance" xmlns:udcxf =
"http://schemas.microsoft.com/data/udc/xmlfile" xmlns:wf =
"http://schemas.microsoft.com/sharepoint/soap/workflow/" xmlns:mver =
"http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/markup-compatibility/2006" xmlns:m =
"http://schemas.microsoft.com/office/2004/12/omml" xmlns:ex12t =
"http://schemas.microsoft.com/exchange/services/2006/types"><HEAD>
<META http-equiv=Content-Type content="text/html; charset=iso-8859-1">
<META content="MSHTML 6.00.6000.16414" name=GENERATOR>
<STYLE>@font-face {
font-family: Wingdings;
}
@font-face {
font-family: SimSun;
}
@font-face {
font-family: Cambria Math;
}
@font-face {
font-family: Calibri;
}
@font-face {
font-family: Tahoma;
}
@font-face {
font-family: @SimSun;
}
@page Section1 {size: 8.5in 11.0in; margin: 1.0in 1.0in 1.0in 1.0in; }
P.MsoNormal {
FONT-SIZE: 12pt; MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt; FONT-FAMILY: "Times New Roman","serif"
}
LI.MsoNormal {
FONT-SIZE: 12pt; MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt; FONT-FAMILY: "Times New Roman","serif"
}
DIV.MsoNormal {
FONT-SIZE: 12pt; MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt; FONT-FAMILY: "Times New Roman","serif"
}
A:link {
COLOR: blue; TEXT-DECORATION: underline; mso-style-priority: 99
}
SPAN.MsoHyperlink {
COLOR: blue; TEXT-DECORATION: underline; mso-style-priority: 99
}
A:visited {
COLOR: purple; TEXT-DECORATION: underline; mso-style-priority: 99
}
SPAN.MsoHyperlinkFollowed {
COLOR: purple; TEXT-DECORATION: underline; mso-style-priority: 99
}
SPAN.gmailquote {
mso-style-name: gmail_quote
}
SPAN.EmailStyle18 {
COLOR: #1f497d; FONT-FAMILY: "Calibri","sans-serif"; mso-style-type: personal-reply
}
.MsoChpDefault {
mso-style-type: export-only
}
DIV.Section1 {
page: Section1
}
OL {
MARGIN-BOTTOM: 0in
}
UL {
MARGIN-BOTTOM: 0in
}
</STYLE>
<!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:shapedefaults v:ext="edit" spidmax="1026" />
</xml><![endif]--><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:shapelayout v:ext="edit">
<o:idmap v:ext="edit" data="1" />
</o:shapelayout></xml><![endif]--></HEAD>
<BODY lang=EN-US vLink=purple link=blue>
<DIV><SPAN class=103260511-17042007><FONT face=Arial color=#0000ff>on
1:</FONT></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV><SPAN class=103260511-17042007><FONT face=Arial
color=#0000ff></FONT></SPAN> </DIV>
<DIV><SPAN class=103260511-17042007><FONT face=Arial color=#0000ff>I don't see
why 'mis' would have to be an exception when doing a semantic change of removing
(implicit or explicit) "other" for various language codes. Doing so is equally
much a semantic change for 'tai' (or any other "other" collection), and of
exactly the same kind, so if it is not ok for 'mis' it would not be ok for 'tai'
either. (If you prefer another acronym, say 'any' instead of 'mis', that is
another ball-game.)</FONT></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV><SPAN class=103260511-17042007><FONT face=Arial
color=#0000ff></FONT></SPAN> </DIV>
<DIV><SPAN class=103260511-17042007><FONT face=Arial color=#0000ff>Furthermore,
since 'mul' is the only code intended for multiple languages (when it is not
practical to list which languages, per fragment of the document preferably), all
of the "languages" codes <STRONG>should instead refer to "language" in
singular</STRONG>. This would not be a semantic change, just referring to each
of the items that may be tagged, not a set of items [book shelf...] so
tagged.</FONT></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV><SPAN class=103260511-17042007><FONT face=Arial
color=#0000ff></FONT></SPAN> </DIV>
<DIV><SPAN class=103260511-17042007><FONT face=Arial color=#0000ff>on
4:</FONT></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV><SPAN class=103260511-17042007><FONT face=Arial
color=#0000ff></FONT></SPAN> </DIV>
<DIV><SPAN class=103260511-17042007><FONT face=Arial color=#0000ff>Programming
languages of various sorts are out of scope (like 'zxx', but unlike 'art'), but
I may agree that they are out of scope in a different way than 'zxx'. Perhaps
"formal language" ('for'), with no further subdivision (they are still out of
scope).</FONT></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV><SPAN class=103260511-17042007><FONT face=Arial
color=#0000ff></FONT></SPAN> </DIV>
<DIV><SPAN class=103260511-17042007><FONT
face=Arial> <FONT color=#0000ff>/kent
k</FONT></FONT></SPAN></DIV><BR>
<BLOCKQUOTE dir=ltr
style="PADDING-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; BORDER-LEFT: #0000ff 2px solid; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px">
<DIV class=OutlookMessageHeader lang=en-us dir=ltr align=left>
<HR tabIndex=-1>
<FONT face=Tahoma size=2><B>From:</B> Peter Constable
[mailto:petercon@microsoft.com] <BR><B>Sent:</B> Tuesday, April 17, 2007 2:19
AM<BR><B>To:</B> ietf-languages@iana.org;
ltru@lists.ietf.org<BR><B>Subject:</B> RE: [Ltru] Re: "mis" update review
request<BR></FONT><BR></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV class=Section1>
<P class=MsoNormal><SPAN
style="FONT-SIZE: 11pt; COLOR: #1f497d; FONT-FAMILY: 'Calibri','sans-serif'">Re
1: Yes, be careful: (a) the majority of existing legacy usage of mis is bound
to be in MARC, and (b) any existing usage would assume the context of ISO
639-2 (i.e. mis in existing usage is the exception list for ISO
639-2).<o:p></o:p></SPAN></P>
<P class=MsoNormal><SPAN
style="FONT-SIZE: 11pt; COLOR: #1f497d; FONT-FAMILY: 'Calibri','sans-serif'"><o:p> </o:p></SPAN></P>
<P class=MsoNormal><SPAN
style="FONT-SIZE: 11pt; COLOR: #1f497d; FONT-FAMILY: 'Calibri','sans-serif'">Re
2: The mis collection is inherently unstable – unavoidably so. Prior to
2005-08-16, an implementation of ISO 639-2 would have tagged Ainu content as
mis; after that date, an implementation of ISO 639-2 would have tagged Ainu
content as ain; existing content tagged before that date would not get
retrieved by request for ain, and it would be conformant to suppose that
requests for mis would not return Ainu content. The mis collection is ugly,
pure and simple. So, I don’t see what the point is of getting worried over
whether we’re making mis unstable: it’s been that way for some
time.<o:p></o:p></SPAN></P>
<P class=MsoNormal><SPAN
style="FONT-SIZE: 11pt; COLOR: #1f497d; FONT-FAMILY: 'Calibri','sans-serif'"><o:p> </o:p></SPAN></P>
<P class=MsoNormal><SPAN
style="FONT-SIZE: 11pt; COLOR: #1f497d; FONT-FAMILY: 'Calibri','sans-serif'">(Note:
mis is badly defined from a stability perspective, though I don’t think
there’s much question of how it’s defined.)<o:p></o:p></SPAN></P>
<P class=MsoNormal><SPAN
style="FONT-SIZE: 11pt; COLOR: #1f497d; FONT-FAMILY: 'Calibri','sans-serif'"><o:p> </o:p></SPAN></P>
<P class=MsoNormal><SPAN
style="FONT-SIZE: 11pt; COLOR: #1f497d; FONT-FAMILY: 'Calibri','sans-serif'">Re
3(b): “</SPAN>There are times when detection can only determine that it looks
like there is some linguistic content -- it is not just binary data -- but
current detection can't really determine what it might be. That is, a code
that means "according to our best available detection methods this doesn't
look like it is zxx".<SPAN
style="FONT-SIZE: 11pt; COLOR: #1f497d; FONT-FAMILY: 'Calibri','sans-serif'">”
If you want to use mis for that, I would argue that that is significantly
changing the semantics of mis. (Even though mis is unstable, it is unstable on
a qualitative level; this is a categorical change.) I definitely oppose that.
If you want an ID for “undetermined human language”, then that should be
proposed. We should not usurp an existing ID for that
purpose.<o:p></o:p></SPAN></P>
<P class=MsoNormal><SPAN
style="FONT-SIZE: 11pt; COLOR: #1f497d; FONT-FAMILY: 'Calibri','sans-serif'"><o:p> </o:p></SPAN></P>
<P class=MsoNormal><SPAN
style="FONT-SIZE: 11pt; COLOR: #1f497d; FONT-FAMILY: 'Calibri','sans-serif'">Re
4: I don’t see how your example differs from this: “Nous avons une phrase en
français (but this is in English)”. The fact that the parenthetical text is in
English doesn’t change the fact that the other text is in French. Similarly,
in your example, the fact that there is a comment in English does not change
the fact that the rest of the text is not in a human language. Do we create
tags for “French with embedded bits of English”?<o:p></o:p></SPAN></P>
<P class=MsoNormal><SPAN
style="FONT-SIZE: 11pt; COLOR: #1f497d; FONT-FAMILY: 'Calibri','sans-serif'"><o:p> </o:p></SPAN></P>
<P class=MsoNormal><SPAN
style="FONT-SIZE: 11pt; COLOR: #1f497d; FONT-FAMILY: 'Calibri','sans-serif'"><o:p> </o:p></SPAN></P>
<P class=MsoNormal><SPAN
style="FONT-SIZE: 11pt; COLOR: #1f497d; FONT-FAMILY: 'Calibri','sans-serif'">Peter<o:p></o:p></SPAN></P>
<P class=MsoNormal><SPAN
style="FONT-SIZE: 11pt; COLOR: #1f497d; FONT-FAMILY: 'Calibri','sans-serif'"><o:p> </o:p></SPAN></P>
<DIV
style="BORDER-RIGHT: medium none; PADDING-RIGHT: 0in; BORDER-TOP: #b5c4df 1pt solid; PADDING-LEFT: 0in; PADDING-BOTTOM: 0in; BORDER-LEFT: medium none; PADDING-TOP: 3pt; BORDER-BOTTOM: medium none">
<P class=MsoNormal><B><SPAN
style="FONT-SIZE: 10pt; FONT-FAMILY: 'Tahoma','sans-serif'">From:</SPAN></B><SPAN
style="FONT-SIZE: 10pt; FONT-FAMILY: 'Tahoma','sans-serif'">
mark.edward.davis@gmail.com [mailto:mark.edward.davis@gmail.com] <B>On Behalf
Of </B>Mark Davis<BR><B>Sent:</B> Monday, April 16, 2007 3:49 PM<BR><B>To:</B>
Peter Constable<BR><B>Cc:</B> ietf-languages@iana.org;
ltru@lists.ietf.org<BR><B>Subject:</B> Re: [Ltru] Re: "mis" update review
request<o:p></o:p></SPAN></P></DIV>
<P class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></P>
<P class=MsoNormal>1. I think we have to be very careful here. The meaning of
a standard like ISO 639-2 is established not by <I>what we wish it would have
said, </I>nor by <I>what we would find out if we were able to read Peter's
mind.</I> It is established by the wording in the standard, and how reasonable
people could interpret it. The fact that "mis" was incorporated in order to
account for MARC codes is interesting, but is not in the text of the standard.
We can't expect users of BCP 47 to all be able to read Peter's mind before
tagging. <BR><BR>2. When we are looking at stability, that is very important:
our goal is that once content is correctly tagged, people can depend on the
fact that we will not change the meaning of a tag out from under them. So
clarifications that we add in future versions of 4646 or the registry are
fine, as long as they do not narrow the range of reasonable interpretations.
We can broaden them. So in the case of "mis", a proposed narrowing to include
just the MARC codes is clearly disallowed, since it was nowhere stated in ISO
639-2 at the time that "mis" was added to the language registry (the BCP 47
semantics are established at the time we add the code). That is one of the key
principles of BCP 47, is to isolate us where necessary from instabilities in
the source standards. <BR><BR>(The one exception we might be able to make is
where something is so badly defined that most reasonable people couldn't come
up with any consistent definition for it.)<BR><BR>3. Now, I think there are
steps that can be taken to make the above moot. I think Peter's suggestion for
ISO 639-X of broadening all of the Collections to remove the (Other) is
exactly the right strategy, and if this can be done before 4646bis is issued,
all the better. So having <o:p></o:p></P>
<UL type=disc>
<LI class=MsoNormal
style="mso-margin-top-alt: auto; mso-margin-bottom-alt: auto; mso-list: l0 level1 lfo1">aus
Australian languages means any of the languages on <A
href="http://www.ethnologue.com/show_family.asp?subid=90498">http://www.ethnologue.com/show_family.asp?subid=90498</A><o:p></o:p>
<LI class=MsoNormal
style="mso-margin-top-alt: auto; mso-margin-bottom-alt: auto; mso-list: l0 level1 lfo1">bat
Baltic (Other) => Baltic languages, means any of the languages on <A
href="http://www.ethnologue.com/show_family.asp?subid=90207">http://www.ethnologue.com/show_family.asp?subid=90207</A><o:p></o:p>
<LI class=MsoNormal
style="mso-margin-top-alt: auto; mso-margin-bottom-alt: auto; mso-list: l0 level1 lfo1">mis
Miscellaneous languages, essentially the root for <A
href="http://www.ethnologue.com/family_index.asp">http://www.ethnologue.com/family_index.asp</A><o:p></o:p>
</LI></UL>
<P class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN-BOTTOM: 12pt">and so on. This is useful on a
number of levels; it resolves a number of problems in the interpretation of
language codes, and makes the source standards themselves more stable. (In the
ideal case, we would have codes for each of the possible "decision points" in
the language tree. That is, if we look at any language code such as <A
href="http://www.ethnologue.com/show_lang_family.asp?code=eng">http://www.ethnologue.com/show_lang_family.asp?code=eng</A>
we'd have codes for each of the parent groupings, not just some of them, like
"Australian languages".) <BR><BR>3. Randy raised the issue as to whether "mis"
in the broad sense is useful (as something that has linguistic content, but I
don't know what it is). It very much follows the model in #3. There are times
when detection can only determine that it looks like there is some linguistic
content -- it is not just binary data -- but current detection can't really
determine what it might be. That is, a code that means "according to our best
available detection methods this doesn't look like it is zxx". <BR><BR>4. I'm
leery of using zxx for programming languages, instead of just binary. There is
clearly some linguistic content in "if (content == null) { /* remove the item
in the lookup table */ ...}". Maybe we need another code for this, something
different than either 'art' or 'zxx'. <BR><BR>Mark<o:p></o:p></P>
<DIV>
<P class=MsoNormal><SPAN class=gmailquote>On 4/14/07, <B>Peter Constable</B>
<<A href="mailto:petercon@microsoft.com">petercon@microsoft.com</A>>
wrote:</SPAN><o:p></o:p></P>
<P class=MsoNormal>From: Randy Presuhn [mailto:<A
href="mailto:randy_presuhn@mindspring.com">randy_presuhn@mindspring.com</A>]<BR><BR><BR>>
I find it very hard to believe that a reasonable analysis<BR>> (whether
done by human or machine) would classify a text a <BR>> being "mis" without
being able to recognize which of the<BR>> languages in that grouping the
text belonged to. I can<BR>> believe someone could look at text
and say "it's a slavic<BR>> language, but I'm not sure which
one." Do we really think <BR>> someone or something would look
at some text and say "it's<BR>> Ainu, Andamanese, or Etruscan, but I can't
tell which, so<BR>> I'll tag it 'mis'"?<BR><BR>If someone were so tempted,
I would argue that would be inappropriate use of mis. Since they do not know
what it is, their declaration is that the language identity is not determined,
and the appropriate tag for that is und. Appropriate use of mis does not
require that one know the language of the content; it does, however, require
that one know it is *not* a language covered by any of the available tags.
<BR><BR><BR><BR>Peter<BR><BR>_______________________________________________<BR>Ltru
mailing list<BR><A href="mailto:Ltru@ietf.org">Ltru@ietf.org</A><BR><A
href="https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ltru">https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ltru
</A><o:p></o:p></P></DIV>
<P class=MsoNormal><BR><BR clear=all><BR>-- <BR>Mark
<o:p></o:p></P></DIV></BLOCKQUOTE></BODY></HTML>