<!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><!--[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-face {
font-family: Cambria Math;
}
@font-face {
font-family: Calibri;
}
@font-face {
font-family: Tahoma;
}
@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
}
SPAN.EmailStyle20 {
COLOR: #1f497d; FONT-FAMILY: "Calibri","sans-serif"; mso-style-type: personal-reply
}
.MsoChpDefault {
FONT-SIZE: 10pt; 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=926454607-18042007><FONT face="Arial Unicode MS" color=#0000ff
size=2>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).</FONT></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV><SPAN class=926454607-18042007><FONT face="Arial Unicode MS" color=#0000ff
size=2></FONT></SPAN> </DIV>
<DIV><SPAN class=926454607-18042007><FONT face="Arial Unicode MS" color=#0000ff
size=2>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</FONT></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV><SPAN class=926454607-18042007><FONT face="Arial Unicode MS" color=#0000ff
size=2>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).</FONT></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV><SPAN class=926454607-18042007><FONT face="Arial Unicode MS" color=#0000ff
size=2></FONT></SPAN> </DIV>
<DIV><SPAN class=926454607-18042007><FONT face="Arial Unicode MS" color=#0000ff
size=2>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".</FONT></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV><SPAN class=926454607-18042007><FONT face="Arial Unicode MS" color=#0000ff
size=2></FONT></SPAN> </DIV>
<DIV><SPAN class=926454607-18042007>
<FONT face="Arial Unicode MS" color=#0000ff size=2>/kent k</FONT></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV><SPAN class=926454607-18042007><FONT face="Arial Unicode MS" color=#0000ff
size=2></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> 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<BR></FONT><BR></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV class=Section1>
<P class=MsoNormal><SPAN
style="FONT-SIZE: 11pt; COLOR: #1f497d; FONT-FAMILY: 'Calibri','sans-serif'">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: 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'">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: 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'">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: 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>
<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'"> 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="COLOR: blue; FONT-FAMILY: 'Arial','sans-serif'">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="COLOR: blue; FONT-FAMILY: 'Arial','sans-serif'">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="COLOR: blue; FONT-FAMILY: 'Arial','sans-serif'">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="COLOR: blue; FONT-FAMILY: 'Arial','sans-serif'">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="COLOR: blue; FONT-FAMILY: 'Arial','sans-serif'">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-RIGHT: medium none; PADDING-RIGHT: 0in; BORDER-TOP: medium none; PADDING-LEFT: 4pt; PADDING-BOTTOM: 0in; MARGIN: 5pt 0in 5pt 3.75pt; BORDER-LEFT: blue 1.5pt solid; PADDING-TOP: 0in; BORDER-BOTTOM: medium none">
<P class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></P>
<DIV class=MsoNormal style="TEXT-ALIGN: center" align=center>
<HR align=center width="100%" SIZE=2>
</DIV>
<P class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN-BOTTOM: 12pt"><B><SPAN
style="FONT-SIZE: 10pt; FONT-FAMILY: 'Tahoma','sans-serif'">From:</SPAN></B><SPAN
style="FONT-SIZE: 10pt; 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: 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></BLOCKQUOTE></DIV></BLOCKQUOTE></BODY></HTML>