- From: Chris Newman <Chris.Newman@INNOSOFT.COM>
- Date: Fri, 05 Sep 1997 11:36:17 -0700 (PDT)
- To: ietf-charsets@INNOSOFT.COM
A suggestion for the justification to have a default language: * The default language is the language which is most likely to be common between any pair of client and server implementors. This is an engineering requirement to simplify troubleshooting. I don't like the current wording about the default language being English, but different from explicitly negotiating English. I see two acceptable paths: (1) The default language is "en", which may be different from explicitly negotiating an english dialect such as "en-US" or "en-UK". New protocols MUST provide a mechanism to negotiate a language for human readable text which would otherwise be sent in the default language. (2) The default language is "i-default". The difference between "i-default" and "en" is <insert appropriate precise text and registration for i-default here>. I'm skeptical that we'll find appropriate precise text to insert in the hole in section (2) and I don't like the idea of inventing our own language (which is what 2 does). What I find unacceptable is having the protocol start up in a state with presumably useful error strings, then requiring a one-way negotiation away from that state. - Chris --Boundary (ID uEbHHWxWEwCKT9wM3evJ5w)
Received on Saturday, 6 September 1997 01:02:13 UTC