On 6/1/18 10:27 AM, John R Levine wrote: > On Fri, 1 Jun 2018, Peter Saint-Andre wrote: >>> Require that documents have I18N Considerations sections, require review >>> by an I18N directorate, and you'll see how quickly participants who used >>> to not give a damn about I18 will come around, learn what they have to, >>> and get their I18N work done. Suddenly the I18N directorate will be in >>> demand. >> >> This is worth considering... > > I don't think it's a very good idea. It'll just lead to useless > pro-forma language. Quite possibly. > It'd be OK if IESG review were to flag drafts and > ask whether they should say something about I18N. We might want authors to think about internationalization before IESG review. > Like jck, I have to disagree with Nico's assertion that anyone can pick > up I18N expertise quickly, I don't think he said "quickly". :-) > and also jck's comment that if your > experience is only with European alphabetic languages, you've barely > scratched the surface. It's remarkably subtle. It needs a particular > mindset, in much the way that being a crypto expert does. Different > mindset, though. All true. To pursue the analogy, AFAIK (correct me if I'm wrong) we don't have that many pure cryptography experts at the IETF. We do have folks who know enough about crypto to make intelligent, well-informed recommendations with regard to the use of cryptography in Internet protocols. Perhaps that's mostly what we need for i18n, too. Whether we call this "expertise" or "competence" doesn't especially matter. (FWIW, although like Nico I've learned plenty about i18n and I've even authored some RFCs on the topic, I do *not* consider myself an expert.) Peter
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
