Re: 10646, and all that

> It isn't so much that language information is useless for spell
> checking, it is that language information to be included in the message
> as transported is normally irrelevant for that purpose. Under almost
> any circumstances that I can imagine, spell checking is a function of a
> sending UA, before the message is sent.  No MIME-embedded information is
> needed to cover that case, regardless of the language.
ISO 639 is too coarse to be so useful, anyway

> However, at least one other example has been given, which is the use,
> possibly with multipart/alternative, of body parts that are
> language-tagged so that the most appropriate language available in the
> source message can be presented to the user or, if necessary, one part
> can be routed for human or automated translation by a receiving MHS. 
> That type of application has exact parallels with other cases in which 
> multipart-alternative might be used, e.g., text/plain, text/richtext,
> and page-defining applications; alternate audio formats; different image
> resolutions and color setups, etc.
Again, ISO 639 is too coarse.

There is no single spoken Chinese.

                                                Masataka Ohta