> > "Re:" is a standard that should not be translated. > > Except some languages don't use it.
I think, many languages include Latin words and abbreviations in some form. There are a many Latin words used in biology, medicine, philosophy, formal literature etc. I would argue that Latin, being a dead language, creates an acceptable middle ground for even some _new_ abbreviations. This reduces the grounds for different cultures to feel invaded by some foreign term: "WWW stands for World Wide Web? Better translate it! Re is Latin? Oh, some ancient philosophers probably used it all over their correspondence, leave it be" :-) Here are some other things to consider about "Re:" 1) It is recognized by RFC5322: When used in a reply, the field body MAY start with the string "Re: " (an abbreviation of the Latin "in re", meaning "in the matter of") followed by the contents of the "Subject:" field body of the original message. 2) There will be difficulties with localizing it. Here is a common scenario described in Wikipedia[1]: The email client will typically check for an existing "Re:" when deciding whether or not to add one in front of the subject. However, clients may use different abbreviations if the computer is set up for a non-English language, e.g. "AW:" for German, and this can mean that a conversation between two participants can build up convoluted subject lines like "Re: AW: Re: AW: ..". So unless there's a very good reason, I think we should avoid localizing this portion. [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_email_subject_abbreviations
