[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Last Call: draft-ietf-imapext-sort (INTERNET MESSAGE ACCESS PROTOCOL - SORT AND THREAD EXTENSIONS) to Proposed Standard
On Wed, 27 Feb 2008, Timo Sirainen wrote:
Perhaps it could be defined as non-strictly-defined
way so that in different countries the sorting could be done differently
based on their local rules.
*Shudder*
That's how the sorting currently works in the world. Each country has
their own local sorting rules in their phone books etc. Why should we
force something that's different to what people have been used to?
I didn't shudder in disagreement. I shuddered because I agree with you!
Or rather, at least to the point that localization rules *are* a critical
component of such an effort. The problem is that any situation in which
l10n comes up is worth a shudder. l10n is far more frightening than i18n
or even m17n.
I don't believe that it can be a "non-strictly-defined way", however.
Rather, I believe that it must be very strictly defined, with the client
(*not* the server) deciding upon which l10n policy. Thus, we need
negotiation of l10n.
This, in turn, suggests that either servers have to know about lots of
l10n rules for the world, or there needs to be some means by which a
client can express and upload its l10n rules to the server.
Hopefully at this point you are shuddering too. l10n is hard! ;-)
-- Mark --
http://staff.washington.edu/mrc
Science does not emerge from voting, party politics, or public debate.
Si vis pacem, para bellum.