The main concern I had is deprecating the unstable "mis". I used "root" to contrast with how it could have been done in a stable fashion. The code "und" is a superset of "root" -- the basic difference being that "und" can also include non-linguistic content. So I don't think it is a priority right now to have a separate code, compared to finishing the other items in 4646bis.
<br><br>Mark<br><br><div><span class="gmail_quote">On 6/18/07, <b class="gmail_sendername">John Cowan</b> <<a href="mailto:cowan@ccil.org">cowan@ccil.org</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;">
Mark Davis scripsit:<br><br>> - Have a code I'll call here "root" (to avoid any misunderstanding<br>> about the meaning of "mis".)<br>> - Have it be valid to tag any language content with "root".
<br>> - State that one SHOULD tag as narrowly as possible, thus avoid "root"<br>> if there is a more specific language code.<br><br>If you feel strongly about this, you could ask for it to be registered
<br>as an (exceptional) RFC 4646 language subtag. "Root" is too short,<br>but "somelang" would work.<br><br>--<br>Take two turkeys, one goose, four John Cowan<br>cabbages, but no duck, and mix them
<a href="http://www.ccil.org/~cowan">http://www.ccil.org/~cowan</a><br>together. After one taste, you'll duck <a href="mailto:cowan@ccil.org">cowan@ccil.org</a><br>soup the rest of your life.<br> --Groucho
<br></blockquote></div><br><br clear="all"><br>-- <br>Mark