[standards-jig] Jabber i18n proposal

Matthew A. Miller linuxwolf at outer-planes.no-ip.COM
Sat Apr 26 19:26:25 UTC 2003


Requiring each and every JEP to specify the i18n negotiation seems 
tedious and wasteful.  At least as I understand it, a (standard-track, 
protocol) JEP defines a specific style of conversation between two 
entities.  But these entities have a lifetime well beyond each specific 
conversation.  Put another way, do you negotiate the language used with 
your partners, established customers, friends, and family  before each 
conference, meeting, e-mail, or chat?

Note that I'm talking about internationalization (i18n) here, and not 
localization (l10n).  It's looking necessary and proper for each JEP 
that includes human-intended information to specify its stance on l10n. 
  What seems wasteful is having to negotaite the l10n in use before each 
and every conversation.  As I see it, once two entities have decided 
what language/locale they're using, that is very likely to remain in 
effect for a very, very long time, possibly "forever".

The current revision of JEP-0050 (in jabberstudio.org CVS) assumes that 
the language/locale was negotiated ahead of time.  In my current 
opinion, this would be "best" done via JEP-0020 (which is already 
DRAFT).  I propose that any forthcoming JEP on i18n look at reinforcing 
the use of this protocol.  While they're at it, this same JEP can 
probably define the guidelines that other human-interacting JEPs use for 
specifying their l10n issues.

Then again, maybe I'm not seeing the problem the way I should be.


-  LW

Iain Shigeoka wrote:
> On 4/25/03 9:03, "Matthew A. Miller" <linuxwolf at outer-planes.no-ip.com>
> wrote:
> 
> 
>>I can see this compromise (including xml:lang into the root element, but
>>not the children) being fairly easy to manage, and not very
>>overwhelming.  When time permits, I'll put an "Internationalization"
>>section into JEP-0050 to cover the impacts of xml:lang (and give you
>>guys kindling for the resulting flamewar (-: ).
> 
> 
> I think that would be great... /me goes looking for my flame retardant suit
> 
> 
>>That said, it might be worth putting together an informational JEP on
>>negotiating the language/locale, possibly using JEP-0020 (Feature
>>Negotiation). 
> 
> 
> Agreed. Something like a recommendation regarding internationalization to
> JEP writers along the lines of JEP-1 with examples ... That way there's a
> standard for JEP writers to be held to, but the specifics need to be
> specified on a JEP by JEP basis. JEP-0020-like mechanisms do seem like a
> great way to approach the problem.
> 
> In particular, you shouldn't just assert a lang because the other side of
> the conversation may not support it (and then what do you do?). Negotiating
> the 'best' lang seems pretty specific to users (let alone clients). For
> example, I may request english and if a service can't provide english, it's
> a failure because I'm a mono-language loser. However, another person, may
> request german, but be able to work with english as a second choice if
> german wasn't available.
> 
> -iain
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Standards-JIG mailing list
> Standards-JIG at jabber.org
> http://mailman.jabber.org/listinfo/standards-jig


-- 
Matt "linuxwolf" Miller
JID:	linuxwolf at outer-planes.net
E-MAIL:	linuxwolf at outer-planes.net

- Got "JABBER"? (http://www.jabber.org/)




More information about the Standards mailing list