"mis" update review request

Mark Davis mark.davis at icu-project.org
Fri Apr 20 17:08:02 CEST 2007

I agree, although I consider it bizarre rather than barbaric ;-)

As in example #9 of http://docs.google.com/Doc?id=dfqr8rd5_11g425c9, to
think that the following contains "no linguistic content" is bizarre. It
obviously contains linguistic content.

if (linguisticContent == null) { throw new Exception(""); }


On 4/20/07, Frank Ellermann <nobody at xyzzy.claranet.de> wrote:
> 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.
> Frank
> _______________________________________________
> Ietf-languages mailing list
> Ietf-languages at alvestrand.no
> http://www.alvestrand.no/mailman/listinfo/ietf-languages

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.alvestrand.no/pipermail/ietf-languages/attachments/20070420/f508b000/attachment.html

More information about the Ietf-languages mailing list