  Re: For review: Tagging text with no language  From: Frank
Ellermann <nobody@xyzzy.claranet.de> Date: Sat, 14 Apr 2007
00:02:03 +0200 To: www-international@w3.org Message-ID:
<461FFDDB.57BC@xyzzy.claranet.de> Cc: ltru@lists.ietf.org  Mark
Davis wrote:  > 'und' is possible, but I think that mul conveys
more information.  This "more info" could be wrong if you're
sure that it's either 'chat' or 'cat'.  With "mul" you can
justify 'en AND fr', arguably you can also justify 'en OR fr'.
I'd draw the line at 'en XOR fr', that's not "mul".   [Igonda
flatunicai vbinkli?] >> That would be wrong for almost all
languages not yet in the >> registry belonging to another
collection like "ger".  > It's not wrong. I agree that where
possible, one 'should' tag as > precisely as possible, but there
is no requirement to in the RFC.  Using "mis" instead of "ger"
is like using "fr" instead of "en", it's plain wrong based on
John's explanations and the sources he has cited.  The RFC
doesn't forbid wrong or misleading tags, but t