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

["Kent Karlsson" <[e-mail]>]

 
Martin Dürst wrote:
> 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'.

That was the *very thing* that was changed by the recent change to 'mis'.
(And there was a real change!) What used to be 'suboptimal' is now
'invalid' w.r.t. the use of 'mis'.

'mis' used to be interpretable in a stable way, but that is no longer
possible given the change. (Which is why I've been arguing against this
change all along.)

	/kent k



_______________________________________________
Ltru mailing list
[e-mail]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ltru