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

At 00:29 07/06/17, Mark Davis wrote:
>That's going in the right direction, but doesn't not given enough guidance as to why to avoid it. My suggested language:
>
>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'm a bit confused here. We want to try to give absoulte stability
guarantees. But then we recommend 'und' (wrong to start with, because
we know what language it is, so calling it undetermined is lying)
or a private tag (inherently unstable and non-interoperable).
Why don't we just accept that 'mis' is unstable (no disagreement
here, of course), but instead of saying "invalid at any point without
any warning -- and hence incompatible with the stability goals of BCP 47",
warn the receiver that 'mis' may refer to a language that in the meantime
has been coded, and change our language, e.g. 'invalid' -> 'suboptimal'.

Regards,    Martin.

#-#-#  Martin J. Du"rst, Assoc. Professor, Aoyama Gakuin University
#-#-#  http://www.sw.it.aoyama.ac.jp       mailto:duerst@it.aoyama.ac.jp     

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