"mis" update review request

[Doug Ewell]

Mark Davis <mark dot davis at icu dash project dot org> wrote:

> 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'.

Number one, I thought it had always been a hard and fast rule that RFC 
1766/3066/4646 language tags were for human languages only:

RFC 1766:  "Computer languages are explicitly excluded."
RFC 3066:  "Computer languages such as programming languages are 
explicitly excluded."
RFC 4646:  "This includes constructed and artificial languages, but 
excludes languages not intended primarily for human communication, such 
as programming languages."

I don't see what new evidence compels us to change this now.

Number two, if we absolutely MUST change this now, in what sense would 
variant subtags under "art" not fit the bill?

--
Doug Ewell  *  Fullerton, California, USA  *  RFC 4645  *  UTN #14
http://users.adelphia.net/~dewell/
http://www1.ietf.org/html.charters/ltru-charter.html
http://www.alvestrand.no/mailman/listinfo/ietf-languages