Re: Possible BofF question -- I18n (was: Re: Possible OBF question -- I18n)

[Nico Williams <[e-mail]>]

On Fri, Jun 1, 2018 at 11:42 AM Peter Saint-Andre <[e-mail]>
wrote:

> On 6/1/18 10:27 AM, John R Levine wrote:
> > On Fri, 1 Jun 2018, Peter Saint-Andre wrote:
> >>> Require that documents have I18N Considerations sections, require
> review
> >>> by an I18N directorate, and you'll see how quickly participants who
> used
> >>> to not give a damn about I18 will come around, learn what they have to,
> >>> and get their I18N work done.  Suddenly the I18N directorate will be in
> >>> demand.
> >>
> >> This is worth considering...
> >
> > I don't think it's a very good idea.  It'll just lead to useless
> > pro-forma language.
>
> Quite possibly.


We have the IESG and directorates to make sure these sections are not pro
forma.


>  It'd be OK if IESG review were to flag drafts and
> > ask whether they should say something about I18N.
>
> We might want authors to think about internationalization before IESG
> review.
>
> > Like jck, I have to disagree with Nico's assertion that anyone can pick
> > up I18N expertise quickly,
>
> I don't think he said "quickly". :-)


I don't either :)

> and also jck's comment that if your
> > experience is only with European alphabetic languages, you've barely
> > scratched the surface.  It's remarkably subtle.  It needs a particular
> > mindset, in much the way that being a crypto expert does.  Different
> > mindset, though.
>
> All true.
>
> To pursue the analogy, AFAIK (correct me if I'm wrong) we don't have
> that many pure cryptography experts at the IETF. We do have folks who
> know enough about crypto to make intelligent, well-informed
> recommendations with regard to the use of cryptography in Internet
> protocols. Perhaps that's mostly what we need for i18n, too. Whether we
> call this "expertise" or "competence" doesn't especially matter. (FWIW,
> although like Nico I've learned plenty about i18n and I've even authored
> some RFCs on the topic, I do *not* consider myself an expert.)


This is my point exactly.  We can make do with the participants that we
have.  And since they are all we have, making do is what wet must do.  Of
course, we may attract new participants, and we should educate the ones we
already have.  So let's do that.

Nico
--