> Now, if this corner case does exist the cleanest solution would be to
> have two separate responses.
Right.
> But that might break existing implementations.
Indeed.
After reading all responses on this subject I still tend to think that
Tim's proposal is the best one: I can't see any good reason why a server
would implement LANGUAGE command and only support i-default, as this is
pointless.
Hmm. Well, the one possibility that occurs to me os that quite a lot of
software implements i18n support by having a separate
directory/file/container
for each supported language. That way new languages can be added or
removed on
the fly. And when a given language is requested a check is made to see if
there's a corrresponding directory/file/container for it.
This makes it fairly easy to end up in a situation where the only
directory/file/container is the i-default one - in fact the usual way
this
works is i-default is the built-in default that doesn't have a
directory/file/container associated with it, so this corresponds to
the fairly
common "I deleted all those nasty i18n files in order to save space"
behavior.