Ned Freed writes:
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.
Are you sure?Let me put it another way. If a piece of software needs a file and the file isn't there, then IMNSHO there are exactly three possibilities: Either the software says so at startup and quits, or it says so and adjusts its configuration so it doesn't need the file, or it sucks.
Breaking subtly when it's time to use a particular feature puts it into the third category.
I think what's being required of implementations is borderline unreasonablle and absent specific cautions in the specification I would not blame an implementation inthe 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 thisup, I really don't care how this ends up as long as the issue is mentioned inthe text.
Yes. Text necessary. Arnt