I never thought of such an aspect, but the reasons for having such a code element sound very convincing...
> Von: Peter Constable <[log in to unmask]>
> Datum: 2005/06/08 Mi PM 10:17:04 CEST
> An: [log in to unmask]
> Betreff: RE: Réf. : Re: code for "non-linguistic content"
> > From: ISO 639 Joint Advisory Committee [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf
> > Of Anila Angjeli
> > As I mentioned hereabove there are sound recordings (music, or
> > sounds of the nature, etc.), silent films, grafic materials and images,
> > objects (in a broad sense of the word), and so on.
> > Should a "zzz" or "xzz" code solve the problem ?
> > I wonder if it is the role of a standard that codes linguistic unities, to
> > takle with the problem of presence or absence of the linguisitc unity ?
> Effectively, we're talking about a code that means "not applicable" for use in scenarios where a protocol or database design forces some language code to be inserted. We don't need to differentiate causes as to *why* it wouldn't be applicable; we'd only be indicating the simple binary-condition fact.
> Peter Constable