Re: [Emu] #18 Internationalization of error messages

["Joseph Salowey (jsalowey)" <jsalowey at cisco.com>]

OK, makes sense.  How about we make the language tags specific to text
sent from the server to the peer that is intended to be displayed to a
user.  We can also specifically state that it is also acceptable to send
numeric codes that can be mapped to a specific representation by the
client to meet the internationalization requirement.  These codes would
not be internationalized even if they were in ASCII/UTE-8 format. 

Does this make sense?

Thanks,

Joe

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Bernard Aboba [mailto:bernard_aboba at hotmail.com] 
> Sent: Tuesday, September 08, 2009 7:09 PM
> To: Joseph Salowey (jsalowey); emu at ietf.org
> Subject: RE: [Emu] #18 Internationalization of error messages
> 
> I don't have a problem with requiring support for UTF-8 in 
> usernames and passwords within authentication mechanisms 
> native to the tunnel method.  However, I do have an issue 
> with requiring internationalization of error message text.  
> 
> One of the principles of good protocol design is to *avoid* 
> internationalization problems within error messages by use of 
> error numbers (e.g. 404 in HTTP and SIP).  This makes it 
> possible for client software to display localized versions of 
> error messages without requiring the server to support 
> internationalization.
> 
> If the tunnel protocol incorporates error numbers, it should 
> therefore not be necessary for the server to send 
> internationalized error text.  
> 
> Adding requirements for internationalization of error text or 
> negotiation of language tags for error messages is not only 
> unnecessary, it is actually enforcing a requirement for a 
> *bad design*.  
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
>