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

On 17 Jun 2007, at 07:56, scríobh Martin Duerst:

> 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).

Such confusion is among the many adverse effects of rashly converting  
the domestic practice of one country (MARC, SIL, etc.) into  
international standards, instead of building them brick by aware  
brick, as is normally done. If Martin's current proposal (below) can  
go some way towards countering the adverse efffect currently under  
discussion here, then he has my support in that.
mg

> 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'.

- -
Marion Gunn * EGTeo (Estab.1991)
27 Páirc an Fhéithlinn, Baile an
Bhóthair, Co. Átha Cliath, Éire.
* mgunn@egt.ie * eamonn@egt.ie *

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