Print

Print


The usage of "mis" won't necessarily be narrower over time.  At least in
the MARC code list it is possible that languages could still be added to
the scope of "mis."

The scope of "und" as I understand it would be when you cannot identify
which language you have.  That is a quite different concept than to say
I know what language it is but there is no coded identifier for the
language.

Milicent Wewerka
Library of Congress


>>> "Kent Karlsson" <[log in to unmask]> 06/14/07 5:11 AM >>>
I agree with Mark here.
 
With this change, the use recommendation effectively hasn't changed,
but the coverage has,
and it has changed in a way to make it inherently unstable.
 
I see two ways of dealing with this:
 
1) Ignore the change, and let the coverage still be "all languages"
(one a a time).
 
2) Deprecate 'mis', and use 'und' ("all languages (or not a language)")
in its place (despite the different intention).
 
        /kent k
 


  _____  

From: [log in to unmask]
[mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Mark
Davis
Sent: Thursday, June 14, 2007 6:10 AM
To: Peter Constable
Cc: John Cowan; [log in to unmask]; Håvard Hjulstad; [log in to unmask];
[log in to unmask]; [log in to unmask] 
Subject: Re: ISO 639-2 decision: "mis"


'mis' is thus a complete abomination. Why on earth should we not
deprecate it? That does not prevent it from being used -- we can't do
that for stability's sake -- but does give as strong a warning as we
can. 


On 6/13/07, Peter Constable <[log in to unmask]> wrote: 

As I've suggested before, 'mis' has always been inherently unstable.

 

Peter

 

From: [log in to unmask]
[mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Mark
Davis
Sent: Wednesday, June 13, 2007 2:55 PM
To: John Cowan
Cc: [log in to unmask]; [log in to unmask]; Håvard Hjulstad;
[log in to unmask]; [log in to unmask] 
Subject: Re: ISO 639-2 decision: "mis"

 

This is a mixed bag. On the one hand, it is great to finally get some
clarity on the intended meaning for the future. On the other hand, it
means that this code's meaning is intrinsically intended to narrow over
time; as each new code is added, its meaning narrows to cover fewer
situations. This is inherently *unstable*, and unsuitable for any
situation that demands stability, like BCP 47. 

Note that this still does not allow a narrowing of "mis" in BCP 47.
However, for this case I think it makes the case strong enough for
completely deprecating "mis" in BCP 47bis.

Mark

On 6/13/07, John Cowan <[log in to unmask]> wrote:

Håvard  Hjulstad scripsit:

> The identifier mis, which has been part of ISO 639-2 since its
> publication in 1998, has its scope changed from collective to
special
> purpose.
>
> The previously assigned "names" in English and French were 
> "miscellaneous languages" and "diverses, langues". These "names"
> have been changed to uncoded languages and langues non codées.

Hurrah!

--
In my last lifetime,                            John Cowan 
I believed in reincarnation;                   
http://www.ccil.org/~cowan <http://www.ccil.org/%7Ecowan> 
in this lifetime,                               [log in to unmask] 
I don't.  --Thiagi
_______________________________________________
Ietf-languages mailing list
[log in to unmask] 
http://www.alvestrand.no/mailman/listinfo/ietf-languages 




-- 
Mark 




-- 
Mark