Re: Suggested language for "mis" (Re: [Ltru] RE: ISO 639-2 decision: "mis")

Mark Davis <mark dot davis at icu dash project dot org> proposed:

> The 'mis' (Uncoded) primary language subtag SHOULD NOT be used. According 
> to ISO 639, it is used to identify linguistic content whose language is 
> known but which does not *currently* have a corresponding subtag. It is 
> thus intrinsically unstable -- the addition of other codes in the future 
> can render its application invalid at any point without any warning -- and 
> hence incompatible with the stability goals of BCP 47. It is thus always 
> preferable to use other subtags: either "und" or -- with prior 
> agreement -- private use subtags.

I am OK with this except for the recommendation to use "und".  If the 
"language is known," then it is not "undetermined."  I suggest:

"It is thus always preferable to use private-use subtags with prior 
agreement."

I might quibble with the wording "without any warning," since every time a 
new language subtag is added to the Registry, that language is potentially 
removed from the scope of "mis" (or it might be removed from the scope of 
some other language subtag, which is thus "narrowed," which is its own 
discussion).

I hate the way this minor and largely theoretical edge case is dragging down 
the project.  Are we almost ready to go with 4646bis except for "mis"?  Do 
any other issues needs to be resolved?  If so, can we spend some time on 
those issues as well?

--
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

_______________________________________________
Ltru mailing list
Ltru@ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ltru