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

Mark Davis wrote:

> "und" is always a possible alternate tag for any content. That is, even if 
> I know that content in my web page is English, I don't *have to* tag it 
> with English -- I can leave it untagged, which is the equivalent of "und". 
> And private use codes can present their own issues -- if you don't have 
> any prior agreement then "und" is arguably better.

I don't agree that "und" is equivalent to "no tag," but I don't want to 
spend a lot of time arguing about it, since I believe "und" (like "mis") is 
an exceptional subtag that is likely to see very little use in the real 
world.

> Referring to 
> http://www.inter-locale.com/ID/draft-ietf-ltru-4646bis-06.html
>
> There are quite a number of fixes that still need to be made.
>
> Example - cleaning up extlang to still be reserved.

Whoa, time out.  When did we agree NOT to use the extlang mechanism for new 
639-3 languages that have a macrolanguage?  I know you wanted that, but 
where was the consensus that makes these wishes into "fixes that need to be 
made"?  This is why I wish we were using the issue tracker as we did for 
3066bis.

--
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