"mis" update review request
kent.karlsson14 at comhem.se
Sat Apr 14 14:38:07 CEST 2007
(I'll dare a crosspost here, since most of this debate is crossposted already...)
Doug Ewell wrote:
> I suspect this whole debate over "mis" is more of a thought-experiment,
I think so too. But while we're at it...
I'm not too keen on the word "miscellaneous", which seem more appropriate
to what you can find on a shelf of books (these books are in miscellaneous
languages, that no-body here has cared to divide up) than for tagging a
single document, or part of a document. For a single document or portion
of a document, "mis" *seems* to be saying the same as "mul", which I don't
think was the intention.
I would rather see "mis" as saying "linguistic content" (but not specified
which language), opposite to "no linguistic content", but quite close to "und"
(which seems to cover both "no linguistic content" and "linguistic content"
and maybe also 'mul', II understand the debate so far). I don't think that
ny of the collection codes, 'mis' included, are intended to cover 'mul',
though 'und' could well cover 'mul'.
But I agree that while the current interpretation (as per MARC at least)
would be "other lingustic content", but I agree that the "other" in that
interpretation is problematic (as for many other collection codes).
More information about the Ietf-languages