[recipient list trimmed] > Look at other international communications systems, like TELEX and EDI > (Electronic Data Interchange). Why are they so "universal"? they aren't. both are used by a limited number of people within a limited set of business interests, as compared to the Internet. > I personally think that any internationalization process should always look > for the most common set of shared stuff. the "most common set of shared stuff" is already supported, so people who are content with that set can already communicate quite well. but the vast majority of people who speak other languages than English cannot communicate effectively using that "most common set of shared stuff", so we're trying to address the problem for those people. > Of course, this highly reduces the > different flavours, this narrows the possibilities, but we gain in > standardization, in internationalization, in mutual understanding! nice dream. but the vast majority of people in the world who don't speak English might not appereciate your efforts to marginalize them so that you can gain "mutual understanding" with everyone who does speak English (or is willing to learn it). > Look at these two artificial languages : Esperanto and Volapük. then look at how many people actually use those languages, and conclude that they're irrelevant in the context of this discussion. Keith
