OK, makes sense. How about we make the language tags specific to text sent from the server to the peer that is intended to be displayed to a user. We can also specifically state that it is also acceptable to send numeric codes that can be mapped to a specific representation by the client to meet the internationalization requirement. These codes would not be internationalized even if they were in ASCII/UTE-8 format.
Does this make sense? Thanks, Joe > -----Original Message----- > From: Bernard Aboba [mailto:bernard_ab...@hotmail.com] > Sent: Tuesday, September 08, 2009 7:09 PM > To: Joseph Salowey (jsalowey); emu@ietf.org > Subject: RE: [Emu] #18 Internationalization of error messages > > I don't have a problem with requiring support for UTF-8 in > usernames and passwords within authentication mechanisms > native to the tunnel method. However, I do have an issue > with requiring internationalization of error message text. > > One of the principles of good protocol design is to *avoid* > internationalization problems within error messages by use of > error numbers (e.g. 404 in HTTP and SIP). This makes it > possible for client software to display localized versions of > error messages without requiring the server to support > internationalization. > > If the tunnel protocol incorporates error numbers, it should > therefore not be necessary for the server to send > internationalized error text. > > Adding requirements for internationalization of error text or > negotiation of language tags for error messages is not only > unnecessary, it is actually enforcing a requirement for a > *bad design*. > > > > > > _______________________________________________ Emu mailing list Emu@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/emu
