"mis" update review request
nobody at xyzzy.claranet.de
Fri Apr 20 12:57:58 CEST 2007
Peter Constable wrote:
>> However, your using "pet scenario" to characterize something that I
>> and many others consider "important scenario", like language detection,
>> is unnecessary.
> I was not referring to tasks like language detection. I was referring
> to cases like "content is programming code which I perceive to be in
> some way linguistic". Such individual perceptions are entirely valid
> as just that "individual perceptions" but have no direct connection
> to the concepts coded in ISO 639 and should not be confused with them.
[Quote marks edited by me, keeping LTRU on the CC list, but actually I
think this can be solved on the subtag review list under BCP 47 rules.]
I said "zxx for code is barbaric" based on its description "no linguistic
content". While I agree that this is an "individual perception" and not
covered by BCP 47 I also propose that we need a short comment in the
"zxx" record stating that this tag can be used for code. The description
"no linguistic content" is misleading in the case of code.
More information about the Ietf-languages