Re: [Ltru] RE: ISO 639-2 decision: "mis"

Hi -

> From: "Peter Constable" <petercon@microsoft.com>
> To: "Randy Presuhn" <randy_presuhn@mindspring.com>; "LTRU Working Group" <ltru@ietf.org>
> Sent: Friday, June 15, 2007 2:39 PM
> Subject: RE: [Ltru] RE: ISO 639-2 decision: "mis"
...
> >> The policy for that corpus, however, might well be to use 'mis' for any records
> >> not in some specified list of languages.  IMO, that particular fact should not
> >> nullify describing that system as "an application of BCP 47".
> >
> > This is where we differ.  While the syntax is still ok, the semantic is changed
> > past any hope of interoperability.
>
> I don't get that at all. Every user of that system, which may well be public,
> would understand by the policy for that system, what to expect. The semantics
> of 'mis' would be clearly documented both in ISO 639 and in the LSTR, and
> the usage would be consistent with the documented semantics. If any data
> is exported outside that system, then there would be some semantic loss
> because the context is lost,

You've just explained why such a usage is not interoperable.

> but that is part of the documented contract around 'mis'

Which "documented contract"?

> -- and why users need to understand its shortcomings, so also why users
> would probably be warned against exporting data.

This is making the case for using "MUST NOT" rather than "SHOULD NOT".

> The only issue here is the inherent instability and shortcomings of 'mis'.
> I don't see any abuse of BCP 47. There is nothing whatsoever like using
> "sw" to mean 'Swiss German'.

Yes, it is in that permitting the tag to be used for languages for which tags
already exist is in direct contradiction to its description.

Randy

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