> >This is not to say that all RFCs do just fine with ASCII > art. We have > >non-standards documents, which we want the outside world to > read, that > >look silly with the current formatting restrictions. We live with > >projecting that visual clumsiness, as geeks often do. > > I understand this. But it restricts RFC to the sole English > (ASCII) language. > Translating RFC as an authoritative text is therefore impossible. > jfc > Well there's a reason pilots and sailors and other people who's business is truly international use english. We can't legitamately expect technical issues to be drafted in every language (just like we can't expect pilots to all know 5 languages) either. While I believe in the cultural and intellectual value of different languages in exposing different viewpoints and ways of thinking I don't believe there's anything technically oriented that *can't* be expressed in english as well as any other language. It just so happens that mostly english is the bridge that connects international endevours, not that it's necessarily easiest (I believe they use french for example in many UN docs because it's concise for example) it just happens to be the one that people accept (much like for example internet standards!). Nor do I have the personal motivation to translate a technical document to hungarian or spanish though I could, because, fluent or not, that's still REALLY hard and depending in any way on being technically colloquial in many languages, and doing a good job at it. That's not to say that anyone won't welcome translations of important documents, but perhaps that's a much better job for the UN then the IETF. -Tom
Attachment:
smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature
_______________________________________________ Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf