draft-4646bis, Section 4.1 (4)(4)

Hi -

I think the following text in section 4.1 (4)(4) is misleading, if
not simply incorrect.  The current text says
           Note: where there are fragments of
           linguistic content, such as programming source code
           containing comments written in English, the subtag 'zxx'
           might still be used to indicate the primary status of the
           content, just as 'en' can be applied to a predominantly
           English text that contains a few French phrases.

I realize that this is already quite weak, with no normative force,
but it is misleading, and I believe it points in the wrong direction
for the tagging of artifacts like programming source code.  Now this
may be a function of the quality of source code in question, but I
think the analogy to an English document containing a few French phrases
is incorrect.  For well-maintained source code, the embedded comments
make up a substantial percentage, if not the majority of the
textual content.  In some ways, the comments are more important than
the code itself, since they (rather than anything machine-readable)
provide the interface semantics in most environments.  A more
appropriate analogy would be to an English-language document containing
some mathematical stuff.  I've seen (unmaintainable) chunks of code
with no comments at all.  For such abominations zxx makes a lot of sense.
But the vast majority of he production-grade software I've seen would
be much more sensibly tagged 'en'.

Proposal: delete the note.

Randy