(iso639.2708) RE: ISO 639-2 decision: "mis"
mark.davis at icu-project.org
Mon Jun 18 18:23:11 CEST 2007
Unfortunately, ISO codes have somewhat of an impedance mismatch with the
needs of the IT community; in particular, stability. Thus BCP 47 has to
stabilize those codes; one of the main reasons for the existence of RFC
4646. What that means is that if ISO tries to narrow the meaning of *any*
code, whether it is a "clarification" or not, we have really only two
1. Keep the broader semantic, which encompasses the new ISO narrow one, or
2. Deprecate the code (in one way or another).
Unlike many other codes, "mis" is one that we can do without, so #2 was a
What I was trying to come up with language that we could agree on even
though we have very different views on the utility and meaning of 'mis'. It
sounds like we are ok on the suggested language on the other thread, so I'm
hoping that we can put "mis" to bed.
On 6/16/07, Peter Constable <petercon at microsoft.com > wrote:
> From: Kent Karlsson [mailto: kent.karlsson14 at comhem.se]
> > With the "old mis" one could correctly apply 'mis' as a language
> > code for any language
> That has *never* been the intent of ISO 639. It is an external
> interpretation, admittedly possible because ISO 639 was not fully explicit
> up to now. But from the perspective of the JAC, the "new mis" is exactly the
> same "mis" as the "old mis".
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the Ietf-languages