From: Jim Whitehead <ejw@ics.uci.edu> To: jamsden@us.ibm.com, ietf-dav-versioning@w3.org Date: Sun, 20 Feb 2000 21:19:04 -0800 Message-ID: <NDBBIKLAGLCOPGKGADOJKEGKCOAA.ejw@ics.uci.edu> Subject: RE: Labels > What if the labels (or other character data) are marshalled in headers > instead of an XML entity body? My understanding is that it doesn't matter where in the protocol the information is marshalled, if it is text intended to be viewed by a person, then it must be i18nable. After all, it does not matter to a user in China how the data is marshalled, only that it is possible for him to set and read labels in a character set he understands. > And what is the relationship between URLs and RFC2277? Are they exempt? Yes, but only because they are a huge legacy problem. I seriously doubt the current syntax of URLs would be approved as-is today. > I suggest lables are somehow a logical > extension of URLs used to distinguish revisions of a versioned resource > identified by the URL. It would therefore be consistent to apply the same > rules used for URLs to labels. Wiggle all you want, the fact remains that the strings are intended for consumption by a person. If the protocol passes WG review and still has non i18nable labels, it is my belief this would be flagged by the area director or by a member of the IESG (Harald Alvestrand is especially keen on these issues), and would be something we'll have to fix before the protocol is finally approved. I think it would be much easier to work this into the protocol earlier, rather than later. - Jim