I'm speaking of personal i18n experience as a Windows developer, and assigning support for Cyrillic-based languages in nginx that I've presumed exist (I've never researched the software but am familiar with the origins.)
IIS/Windows long offered robust support to the multibyte character development spheres, along with localized error messages and JP-2022 rendering. Also enjoys a very long history of R-T-L text support. This is a very dated report but is still useful in illustrating early nginx vs IIS vs Apache httpd adoption, which has always mapped well into my assumptions; https://w3techs.com/blog/entry/most_popular_web_servers_by_country In short, we demand admins read their httpd error log in English, even where the underlying cause has been rendered in their local language by the underlying operating system. (OS error messaging falls apart in mass hosting where readers of different languages are hosted on the same box, but that's an unusual situation, based on mass-vhoster marketing alone.) Localizing our error messages alone would go a long ways to being friendly to non-english speaking administrators. If we don't want to bother, we can expect for our software to be further marginalized. On Wed, Apr 18, 2018 at 12:45 PM, Nick Kew <n...@apache.org> wrote: > >> On 18 Apr 2018, at 17:55, William A Rowe Jr <wr...@rowe-clan.net> wrote: >> >> So I'll start with this; > > Erm, would you like to cite a source for that claim? I confess it’s not one > I’ve seen. > I don’t follow either nginx marketing nor any fan club they might have. > > If what you refer to is the latter, it’s natural for any incumbent > market-leader > to feature in such unflattering comparisons, while challenger communities > have more tendency to be evangelical. Though nowadays nginx should be > up there with us on the wrong side of challenger comparisons! > > — > Nick Kew
