- From: John Cowan <cowan@ccil.org>
- Date: Thu, 12 Apr 2007 14:56:29 -0400
- To: Mark Davis <mark.davis@icu-project.org>
- Cc: John Cowan <cowan@ccil.org>, Richard Ishida <ishida@w3.org>, LTRU Working Group <ltru@ietf.org>, www-international@w3.org
Mark Davis scripsit: > Q1. I had missed the choice of "mis". I agree with that suggestion; > we should incorporate that into 4646bis. The problem is ameliorated > considerably once we add -3, but it doesn't disappear completely, so > "mis" remains a good choice for dealing with that situation. I did not mean to suggest that "mis" is suitable in cases of ignorance about the language in use: it is not a fallback *language* code. Rather, it is a fallback language *collection* code, suitable for languages that don't appear in any other ISO 639-2 collection. By the Ethnologue's count, there are about 130 of these. So it would be an error to tag a language you didn't recognize as 'mis', because it is far more likely to be one of the non-'mis' languages, for the same reason that it would be incorrect to use 'en' or 'nds' or 'afa'. If you want a completely vague language tag, use 'und' (excluding for the moment the question of whether non-linguistic content not recognized as such can be tagged 'und'). > Q2. The issue *does* remain, since we talk about "und" vs the absence > of a language tag, which "" represents. I still don't see that there's anything more to say than we are saying already, which is just a special case of "Tag wisely". -- I now introduce Professor Smullyan, John Cowan who will prove to you that either cowan@ccil.org he doesn't exist or you don't exist, http://www.ccil.org/~cowan but you won't know which. --Melvin Fitting
Received on Thursday, 12 April 2007 18:56:36 UTC