Wouldn't having quasi-authoritative translations *result* in balkanization? The Chinese National Standard series comes immediately to mind of authoritative translations *with interpretations*. -----Original Message----- From: ietf-bounces@xxxxxxxx [mailto:ietf-bounces@xxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of JFC (Jefsey) Morfin Sent: Monday, November 21, 2005 8:08 PM To: ietf@xxxxxxxx Subject: Why are we so exceptional [was: Translations of standards (was: RE: ASCII art)] At 20:49 21/11/2005, John C Klensin wrote: >--On Monday, 21 November, 2005 11:16 -0800 "Hallam-Baker, >Phillip" <pbaker@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > I think that a better case to make wrt internationalization is > > that it is hard to see how a pure ASCII document is ever > > going to provide a satisfactory description of a protocol that > > is based on unicode. > >This is an entirely different issue from the one that I think >Jefsey was raising and Tom was responding to. Conflating them >gets us nowhere at all. I commented Paul Hoffman's response to Julien Maisoneuve about "why we are so exceptional". Nothing else. May be should I have changed the subject. This is now done. >And that takes us back to Paul's original comment, at least as I >understood it -- the important thing is the quality of the >writing. Access to fancy formatting and presentation tools may >make good writing easier to follow and, in particular, to let >the reader get the gist of what is going on before trying to >deeply study the text. But adding fancy formatting and >presentation to poor writing will, at best, only hide, for a >while, the fact that the explanations are inadequate. Agreed. But I hope you do not imply non-ASCII English is fancy formatting and goes with inadequate explanations. >And, by not forcing the extra discipline that writing without a >dependence on clever illustrations requires, it may make it more >likely that we will get documents whose inadequacies are harder >to detect. ASCII Draft is not the main point here. But it is true that a good draft often speaks more than long texts. >As I said, that conclusion could change as experience with >"protocols based on Unicode" expands. But, so far, we have >almost no experience along that dimension (and, incidentally, >neither do ISO or ITU or IEEE, at least as far as I know). I have no idea of what are "protocols based on Unicode". I only know that equal linguistic opportunity and common global interest mean that authoritative protocols and procedures should be producible in every language and aggregated into the IETF document body. Not fully permitting this would only increase the risks of balkanization of the Internet. jfc _______________________________________________ Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf _______________________________________________ Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf