Hi Rebecca I just clicked "reply to all" to Peter's message on IETF-languages with a "+1" indicating my support. I don't think there is anything wrong with the account as I received it via the JAC too. Best regards Debbie > -----Original Message----- > From: ISO 639 Joint Advisory Committee > [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Rebecca S. Guenther > Sent: 19 June 2007 14:09 > To: [log in to unmask] > Subject: Re: (iso639.2708) RE: ISO 639-2 decision: "mis" > > I guess Peter wrote this message, although forwarded from > Debbie (is there a problem with your account on the list?) > > Thank you for writing this message-- very well stated and I > hope that will put an end to the discussion in terms of what > the JAC has to see. > > Rebecca > > > On Tue, 19 Jun 2007, Debbie Garside wrote: > > > > From: [log in to unmask] > > [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Peter > > Constable > > Sent: 18 June 2007 18:17 > > To: LTRU Working Group > > Cc: [log in to unmask]; [log in to unmask]; [log in to unmask]; > > [log in to unmask] > > Subject: RE: (iso639.2708) RE: ISO 639-2 decision: "mis" > > > > > > > > As far as the JAC is concerned, the intentional semantic of > "mis" is > > what it has always been. As for the extension, when 639-2 > was the only > > alpha-3 code, there was only one context to evaluate the extension > > that would be derived by that intention; 639-2 did not document the > > extension, though at least one application of 639-2 - MARC > - did. With > > the introduction of 639-3 and the pending introduction of 639-5 as > > additions to the alpha-3 space, it becomes clear that the extension > > must be determined within a context: the cases where you'd > want to use > > "mis" differ if you're using 639-3 rather than 639-2. But for an > > application of a given part of 639, the change of reference > name has > > had no effect on the extension for that context: the languages > > encompassed by "mis" in a 639-2 application, for instance, > are the same as they were before. > > > > > > > > When it comes to BCP 47, the change of reference name for "mis" is > > basically irrelevant because there is a much bigger issue: in > > RFC4646bis, BCP 47 will change from being an application of > 639-1 and > > -2 to being an application of 639-1, -2 and -3. That change > of context > > is what creates the issue wrt interoperability of "mis" in > > applications of BCP 47: Under RFC 4646, Burushaski content would be > > tagged "mis"; under RFC 4646bis, one would expect new Burushaski > > content to be tagged "bsk". There's no basis for > > matching: that's an interop problem. And note that it has > nothing to > > do with stability of "mis" supposedly introduced with the > name change: > > with or without that change, Burushaski content would be tagged > > differently before and after. > > > > > > > > And note that this issue exists whether one considers "old mis" to > > have the semantic that Keld is stuck on, 'all languages', or the > > semantic that the JAC has always intended: either way, it is the > > addition of 639-3 to BCP 47 that creates an issue for uses > of "mis" under BCP 47, not the name change. > > > > > > > > And even without the addition of 639-3, "mis" would have > interop issues: > > assuming the semantic the JAC has always assumed, the > extension in the > > context of 639-2 could narrow - inherently by the nature of the > > semantic - any time a new entry was added; but assuming the 'all > > languages' semantic, one could end up with comparable > content tagged > > in non-comparable ways, "mis" and something else. > > > > > > > > Therefore, I suggest that beating up ISO as not being in > tune with the > > needs of the IT community is both fruitless and baseless, and is > > ignoring the fact that IETF has problems all of its own making. If > > IETF really wanted to avoid any stability or interop > problems related > > to "mis", it should never have permitted its use in > language tags, starting back in RFC 1766, because "mis" > > has always had stability / interop issues. But that horse > is long out > > of the > > barn: "mis" *can* be used in language tags under RFCs from 1766 to > > 4646. The LTRU WG within IETF needs to decide what to do > about that in RFC 4646bis. > > That's a job for IETF; we don't need to continue bothering > JAC members > > with IETF issues. > > > > > > > > > > > > Peter > > > > > > > > From: [log in to unmask] > [mailto:[log in to unmask]] > > On Behalf Of Mark Davis > > Sent: Monday, June 18, 2007 9:23 AM > > To: Peter Constable > > Cc: Kent Karlsson; Milicent K Wewerka; John Cowan; [log in to unmask]; > > [log in to unmask]; [log in to unmask]; [log in to unmask]; > > [log in to unmask]; LTRU Working Group > > Subject: Re: (iso639.2708) RE: ISO 639-2 decision: "mis" > > > > > > > > Unfortunately, ISO codes have somewhat of an impedance > mismatch with > > the needs of the IT community; in particular, stability. > Thus BCP 47 > > has to stabilize those codes; one of the main reasons for the > > existence of RFC 4646. What that means is that if ISO tries > to narrow > > the meaning of *any* code, whether it is a "clarification" > or not, we > > have really only two > > choices: > > > > 1. Keep the broader semantic, which encompasses the new ISO narrow > > one, or 2. Deprecate the code (in one way or another). > > > > Unlike many other codes, "mis" is one that we can do without, so #2 > > was a reasonable choice. > > > > What I was trying to come up with language that we could > agree on even > > though we have very different views on the utility and meaning of > > 'mis'. It sounds like we are ok on the suggested language > on the other > > thread, so I'm hoping that we can put "mis" to bed. > > > > Mark > > > > On 6/16/07, Peter Constable <[log in to unmask] > > <mailto:[log in to unmask]> > wrote: > > > > From: Kent Karlsson [mailto: <mailto:[log in to unmask]> > > [log in to unmask]] > > > > > With the "old mis" one could correctly apply 'mis' as a language > > > code for any language > > > > That has *never* been the intent of ISO 639. It is an external > > interpretation, admittedly possible because ISO 639 was not fully > > explicit up to now. But from the perspective of the JAC, > the "new mis" > > is exactly the same "mis" as the "old mis". > > > > > > Peter > > > > > > > > > > -- > > Mark > > > > > >