Ned Freed writes: >> Ok, so you are talking about misconfiguration case, while I was thinking >> about implementing LANGUAGE without implementing any languages case. > > I realize with all the attention i18n gets in the IETF it's likely to > be considered an aberrant attitude, but there are plenty of cases > where people don't want any i18n support on their systems. So I > wouldn't call it misconfiguration per se.
Unless the software in question... hm... there are two ways to finish this sentence... - sucks enough to break subtly when it can't find it i18n files. - is documented to require its i18n files. Personally I lean towards the first phrasing. And if we implement LANGUAGE we'll check that we have >1 language before announcing it.
I'm sorry, but I quite simply disagree with this assessment. I think what's being required of implementations is borderline unreasonablle and absent specific cautions in the specification I would not blame an implementation in the slightest for getting this "wrong". That said, it's not like we haven't required far more unreasonable stuff from implementations on numerous past occasions. So, as I said when I brought this up, I really don't care how this ends up as long as the issue is mentioned in the text. Ned