ISO 639-2 decision: "mis"

[Doug Ewell]

Kent Karlsson <kent dot karlsson14 at comhem dot se> wrote:

> I agree with Mark here.
>
> With this change, the use recommendation effectively hasn't changed, but 
> the coverage has, and it has changed in a way to make it inherently 
> unstable.

I agree with Peter here.  The intent of this code element has not changed, 
but the new name reflects the intent much better than the old name did.  The 
code element was always inherently unstable.

> I see two ways of dealing with this:
>
> 1) Ignore the change, and let the coverage still be "all languages" (one a 
> a time).

Strongly, strongly opposed.

> 2) Deprecate 'mis', and use 'und' ("all languages (or not a language)") in 
> its place (despite the different intention).

3) Deprecate "mis", and use "und" to mean "the language of this content is 
undetermined" as it has always meant.

4) Don't deprecate "mis", and use "und" to mean "the language of this 
content is undetermined" as it has always meant.

Please stop trying to postulate a relationship between "mis" and "und" that 
isn't there.  They have always meant two totally different things.

--
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