<html 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" xmlns="http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40">
<head>
<meta http-equiv=Content-Type content="text/html; charset=iso-8859-1">
<meta name=Generator content="Microsoft Word 12 (filtered medium)">
<!--[if !mso]>
<style>
v\:* {behavior:url(#default#VML);}
o\:* {behavior:url(#default#VML);}
w\:* {behavior:url(#default#VML);}
.shape {behavior:url(#default#VML);}
</style>
<![endif]-->
<style>
<!--
/* Font Definitions */
@font-face
{font-family:"Cambria Math";
panose-1:2 4 5 3 5 4 6 3 2 4;}
@font-face
{font-family:"Arial Unicode MS";
panose-1:2 11 6 4 2 2 2 2 2 4;}
@font-face
{font-family:Calibri;
panose-1:2 15 5 2 2 2 4 3 2 4;}
@font-face
{font-family:Tahoma;
panose-1:2 11 6 4 3 5 4 4 2 4;}
@font-face
{font-family:"\@Arial Unicode MS";
panose-1:2 11 6 4 2 2 2 2 2 4;}
/* Style Definitions */
p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal
{margin:0in;
margin-bottom:.0001pt;
font-size:12.0pt;
font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";}
a:link, span.MsoHyperlink
{mso-style-priority:99;
color:blue;
text-decoration:underline;}
a:visited, span.MsoHyperlinkFollowed
{mso-style-priority:99;
color:purple;
text-decoration:underline;}
span.gmailquote
{mso-style-name:gmail_quote;}
span.EmailStyle18
{mso-style-type:personal;
font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";
color:#1F497D;}
span.EmailStyle19
{mso-style-type:personal;
font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";
color:#1F497D;}
span.EmailStyle21
{mso-style-type:personal-reply;
font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";
color:#1F497D;}
.MsoChpDefault
{mso-style-type:export-only;
font-size:10.0pt;}
@page Section1
{size:8.5in 11.0in;
margin:1.0in 1.0in 1.0in 1.0in;}
div.Section1
{page:Section1;}
/* List Definitions */
@list l0
{mso-list-id:508565627;
mso-list-template-ids:-1510197550;}
@list l0:level1
{mso-level-number-format:bullet;
mso-level-text:\F0B7;
mso-level-tab-stop:.5in;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-.25in;
mso-ansi-font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:Symbol;}
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 link=blue vlink=purple>
<div class=Section1>
<p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";
color:#1F497D'>You don’t seem to be grasping: mis is fundamentally
different from every other collection. They are all defined in terms of
membership in some set; mis is defined in terms of exclusion from everything
else. The change to ‘tai’ is not a categorical change: the essence of
the category remains membership in a particular language family. But the suggested
change to mis is absolutely categorical: from exclusion from all other sets to
inclusion in every set.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";
color:#1F497D'><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";
color:#1F497D'>Zxx is a special-case identifier to indicate, “whatever
content is here, it doesn’t have an in-scope attribute”. Zxx is no
more in-scope than und – which is why these are deemed special cases. I
don’t see what the problem is. In terms of ISO 639, the coded concepts of
the standard are the things that linguists refer to as “natural languages”
or “human languages” – the things that humans speak. If content
has meaning expressed in some form of communication *<b>other than</b>* one of
these things, then that content would be considered non-linguistic, and the
form of communication would be considered out of scope. The two
characterizations, ‘non-linguistic’ and ‘out of scope’
correlate.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";
color:#1F497D'><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";
color:#1F497D'>Peter<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";
color:#1F497D'><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<div>
<div style='border:none;border-top:solid #B5C4DF 1.0pt;padding:3.0pt 0in 0in 0in'>
<p class=MsoNormal><b><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif"'>From:</span></b><span
style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif"'> Kent Karlsson
[mailto:kent.karlsson14@comhem.se] <br>
<b>Sent:</b> Wednesday, April 18, 2007 1:17 AM<br>
<b>To:</b> Peter Constable; 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>
</div>
<p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p>
<div>
<p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial Unicode MS","sans-serif";
color:blue'>1a: It is just as much a categorical change for 'tai', 'gem',
etc. But it is a change that I support, since without such a change,
almost all of the collection codes would have an empty set of applicable
languages in the context of 639-3. However, if 'mis' is deprecated and
replaced by a code for 'any language' (rather than handling 'mis' like all of
the other "other" codes) in the process of doing this, I'm not going
to complain. To be nit-picking, all of the collection codes should then also be
replaced (but I'm not going to complain if they are not so replaced when
removing the "other" part of the semantics). Of course, it would be
helpful if the standard defining the collection codes (639-4?) also gave an
explicit hierarchy of the codes (like "'tai' covers ..., ...,
..., and any Tai language not given a code"). Maybe that is the case
already (I haven't seen a draft).</span><o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class=MsoNormal> <o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial Unicode MS","sans-serif";
color:blue'>1b: A document (or text fragment) tagged as e.g. 'tai' is
supposed to be in ONE 'tai' language, not in several 'tai' languages. So in
each individual application, a collection</span><o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial Unicode MS","sans-serif";
color:blue'>code refers to one language, not several languages, even though the
set of languages covered by a collection code usually has more than one element
(or no elements... see 1a).</span><o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class=MsoNormal> <o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial Unicode MS","sans-serif";
color:blue'>4: So why is there a code for 'zxx' if it is out of scope?
Furthermore, 'zxx' is supposed to mean "no linguistic content", not
"out of scope".</span><o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class=MsoNormal> <o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class=MsoNormal> <span
style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial Unicode MS","sans-serif";color:blue'>/kent
k</span><o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class=MsoNormal> <o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<blockquote style='border:none;border-left:solid blue 1.5pt;padding:0in 0in 0in 4.0pt;
margin-left:3.75pt;margin-top:5.0pt;margin-right:0in;margin-bottom:5.0pt'>
<p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p>
<div class=MsoNormal align=center style='text-align:center'>
<hr size=2 width="100%" align=center>
</div>
<p class=MsoNormal style='margin-bottom:12.0pt'><b><span style='font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif"'>From:</span></b><span style='font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif"'> Peter Constable
[mailto:petercon@microsoft.com] <br>
<b>Sent:</b> Wednesday, April 18, 2007 2:33 AM<br>
<b>To:</b> ietf-languages@iana.org; ltru@lists.ietf.org<br>
<b>Subject:</b> RE: [Ltru] Re: "mis" update review request</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";
color:#1F497D'>On 1: I disagree: taking “other” out of mis is a
categorical change – it creates a completely different concept, because
the heart of the concept of mis is “other”.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";
color:#1F497D'><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";
color:#1F497D'>On 1b (“language” vs. “languages”): I
disagree: while the content tagged is in a single language, the concept that
the ID represents is a collection of languages. The ID represents that concept,
not the content; we associate the ID with the content to indicate an
association of the concept with the content.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";
color:#1F497D'><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";
color:#1F497D'>On 4: Again, I disagree. This is like saying, “It’s
out of scope, mostly but not completely.” Either it’s in scope or
it’s out of scope.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";
color:#1F497D'><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";
color:#1F497D'><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";
color:#1F497D'>Peter<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";
color:#1F497D'><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<div>
<div style='border:none;border-top:solid #B5C4DF 1.0pt;padding:3.0pt 0in 0in 0in'>
<p class=MsoNormal><b><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif"'>From:</span></b><span
style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif"'> Kent Karlsson
[mailto:kent.karlsson14@comhem.se] <br>
<b>Sent:</b> Tuesday, April 17, 2007 12:10 PM<br>
<b>To:</b> Peter Constable; 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>
</div>
<p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p>
<div>
<p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-family:"Arial","sans-serif";color:blue'>on
1:</span><o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class=MsoNormal> <o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-family:"Arial","sans-serif";color:blue'>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.)</span><o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class=MsoNormal> <o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-family:"Arial","sans-serif";color:blue'>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><span style='font-family:"Arial","sans-serif"'>should
instead refer to "language" in singular</span></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.</span><o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class=MsoNormal> <o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-family:"Arial","sans-serif";color:blue'>on
4:</span><o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class=MsoNormal> <o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-family:"Arial","sans-serif";color:blue'>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).</span><o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class=MsoNormal> <o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-family:"Arial","sans-serif"'>
<span style='color:blue'>/kent k</span></span><o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<blockquote style='border:none;border-left:solid blue 1.5pt;padding:0in 0in 0in 4.0pt;
margin-left:3.75pt;margin-top:5.0pt;margin-right:0in;margin-bottom:5.0pt'>
<p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p>
<div class=MsoNormal align=center style='text-align:center'>
<hr size=2 width="100%" align=center>
</div>
<p class=MsoNormal style='margin-bottom:12.0pt'><b><span style='font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif"'>From:</span></b><span style='font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif"'> 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</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";
color:#1F497D'>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:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";
color:#1F497D'><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";
color:#1F497D'>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:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";
color:#1F497D'><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";
color:#1F497D'>(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:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";
color:#1F497D'><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";
color:#1F497D'>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:11.0pt;
font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'>” 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:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";
color:#1F497D'><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";
color:#1F497D'>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:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";
color:#1F497D'><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";
color:#1F497D'><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";
color:#1F497D'>Peter<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";
color:#1F497D'><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<div style='border:none;border-top:solid #B5C4DF 1.0pt;padding:3.0pt 0in 0in 0in'>
<p class=MsoNormal><b><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif"'>From:</span></b><span
style='font-size:10.0pt;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>
<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>
<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:12.0pt'>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>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
</div>
</body>
</html>