[Ltru] RE: (iso639.2708) RE: ISO 639-2 decision: "mis"

[Mark Davis]

The main concern I had is deprecating the unstable "mis". I used "root" to
contrast with how it could have been done in a stable fashion. The code
"und" is a superset of "root" -- the basic difference being that "und" can
also include non-linguistic content. So I don't think it is a priority right
now to have a separate code, compared to finishing the other items in
4646bis.

Mark

On 6/18/07, John Cowan <cowan at ccil.org> wrote:
>
> Mark Davis scripsit:
>
> >   - Have a code I'll call here "root" (to avoid any misunderstanding
> >   about the meaning of "mis".)
> >   - Have it be valid to tag any language content with "root".
> >   - State that one SHOULD tag as narrowly as possible, thus avoid "root"
> >   if there is a more specific language code.
>
> If you feel strongly about this, you could ask for it to be registered
> as an (exceptional) RFC 4646 language subtag.  "Root" is too short,
> but "somelang" would work.
>
> --
> Take two turkeys, one goose, four               John Cowan
> cabbages, but no duck, and mix them             http://www.ccil.org/~cowan
> together. After one taste, you'll duck          cowan at ccil.org
> soup the rest of your life.
>         --Groucho
>



-- 
Mark
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.alvestrand.no/pipermail/ietf-languages/attachments/20070618/5610cad3/attachment.html