<!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:mrels =
"http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/package/2006/relationships" xmlns:ex12t =
"http://schemas.microsoft.com/exchange/services/2006/types"><HEAD>
<META http-equiv=Content-Type content="text/html; charset=us-ascii">
<META content="MSHTML 6.00.2800.1561" name=GENERATOR>
<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-reply
}
.MsoChpDefault {
mso-style-type: export-only
}
DIV.Section1 {
page: Section1
}
</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=950165109-19062007><FONT face=Arial color=#0000ff
size=2>+1</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> ietf-languages-bounces@alvestrand.no
[mailto:ietf-languages-bounces@alvestrand.no] <B>On Behalf Of </B>Peter
Constable<BR><B>Sent:</B> 18 June 2007 18:17<BR><B>To:</B> LTRU Working
Group<BR><B>Cc:</B> ietf-languages@iana.org; iso639-2@loc.gov; isojac@loc.gov;
iso639@dkuug.dk<BR><B>Subject:</B> RE: (iso639.2708) RE: ISO 639-2 decision:
"mis"<BR></FONT><BR></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV class=Section1>
<P class=MsoNormal><SPAN
style="FONT-SIZE: 11pt; COLOR: #1f497d; FONT-FAMILY: 'Calibri','sans-serif'">As
far as the JAC is concerned, the intentional semantic of “mis” is what it has
always been. As for the extension, when 639-2 was the only alpha-3 code, there
was only one context to evaluate the extension that would be derived by that
intention; 639-2 did not document the extension, though at least one
application of 639-2 – MARC – did. With the introduction of 639-3 and the
pending introduction of 639-5 as additions to the alpha-3 space, it becomes
clear that the extension must be determined within a context: the cases where
you’d want to use “mis” differ if you’re using 639-3 rather than 639-2. But
for an application of a given part of 639, the change of reference name has
had no effect on the extension for that context: the languages encompassed by
“mis” in a 639-2 application, for instance, are the same as they were
before.<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'">When
it comes to BCP 47, the change of reference name for “mis” is basically
irrelevant because there is a much bigger issue: in RFC4646bis, BCP 47 will
change from being an application of 639-1 and -2 to being an application of
639-1, -2 and -3. That change of context is what creates the issue wrt
interoperability of “mis” in applications of BCP 47: Under RFC 4646,
Burushaski content would be tagged “mis”; under RFC 4646bis, one would expect
new Burushaski content to be tagged “bsk”. There’s no basis for matching:
that’s an interop problem. And note that it has nothing to do with stability
of “mis” supposedly introduced with the name change: with or without that
change, Burushaski content would be tagged differently before and after.
<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'">And
note that this issue exists whether one considers “old mis” to have the
semantic that Keld is stuck on, ‘all languages’, or the semantic that the JAC
has always intended: either way, it is the addition of 639-3 to BCP 47 that
creates an issue for uses of “mis” under BCP 47, not the name change.
<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'">And
even without the addition of 639-3, “mis” would have interop issues: assuming
the semantic the JAC has always assumed, the extension in the context of 639-2
could narrow – inherently by the nature of the semantic – any time a new entry
was added; but assuming the ‘all languages’ semantic, one could end up with
comparable content tagged in non-comparable ways, “mis” and something
else.<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'">Therefore,
I suggest that beating up ISO as not being in tune with the needs of the IT
community is both fruitless and baseless, and is ignoring the fact that IETF
has problems all of its own making. If IETF really wanted to avoid any
stability or interop problems related to “mis”, it should never have permitted
its use in language tags, starting back in RFC 1766, because “mis” has always
had stability / interop issues. But that horse is long out of the barn: “mis”
*<B>can</B>* be used in language tags under RFCs from 1766 to 4646. The LTRU
WG within IETF needs to decide what to do about that in RFC 4646bis. That’s a
job for IETF; we don’t need to continue bothering JAC members with IETF
issues.<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, June 18, 2007 9:23 AM<BR><B>To:</B>
Peter Constable<BR><B>Cc:</B> Kent Karlsson; Milicent K Wewerka; John Cowan;
iso639@dkuug.dk; ietf-languages@iana.org; iso639-2@loc.gov; isojac@loc.gov;
HHj@standard.no; LTRU Working Group<BR><B>Subject:</B> Re: (iso639.2708) RE:
ISO 639-2 decision: "mis"<o:p></o:p></SPAN></P></DIV>
<P class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></P>
<P class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN-BOTTOM: 12pt">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<o:p></o:p></P>
<DIV>
<P class=MsoNormal><SPAN class=gmailquote>On 6/16/07, <B>Peter Constable</B>
<<A href="mailto:petercon@microsoft.com"
target=_blank>petercon@microsoft.com </A>> wrote:</SPAN><o:p></o:p></P>
<P class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN-BOTTOM: 12pt">From: Kent Karlsson [mailto:<A
href="mailto:kent.karlsson14@comhem.se" target=_blank>
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<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>