Unfortunately, ISO codes have somewhat of an impedance mismatch with the needs of the IT community; in particular, stability. Thus BCP 47 has to stabilize those codes; one of the main reasons for the existence of RFC 4646. What that means is that if ISO tries to narrow the meaning of *any* code, whether it is a "clarification" or not, we have really only two choices:
<br><br>1. Keep the broader semantic, which encompasses the new ISO narrow one, or<br>2. Deprecate the code (in one way or another).<br><br>Unlike many other codes, "mis" is one that we can do without, so #2 was a reasonable choice.
<br><br>What I was trying to come up with language that we could agree on even
though we have very different views on the utility and meaning of
'mis'. It sounds like we are ok on the suggested language on the other thread, so I'm hoping that we can put "mis" to bed.<br><br>Mark<br><br><div><span class="gmail_quote">On 6/16/07, <b class="gmail_sendername">
Peter Constable</b> <<a href="mailto:petercon@microsoft.com" target="_blank" onclick="return top.js.OpenExtLink(window,event,this)">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: Kent Karlsson [mailto:<a href="mailto:kent.karlsson14@comhem.se" target="_blank" onclick="return top.js.OpenExtLink(window,event,this)">
kent.karlsson14@comhem.se</a>]<br><br>> With the "old mis" one could correctly apply 'mis' as a language<br>> code for any language<br><br>That has *never* been the intent of ISO 639. It is an external interpretation, admittedly possible because ISO 639 was not fully explicit up to now. But from the perspective of the JAC, the "new mis" is exactly the same "mis" as the "old mis".
<br><br><br>Peter<br><br></blockquote></div><br><br clear="all"><br>-- <br>Mark