On 11 Mar 2018, at 21:14, Marcel Schneider via Unicode <unicode@unicode.org> 
> Indeed, to be fair. And for implementers, documenting themselves in English 
> may scarcely ever have much of a problem, no matter whatʼs the locale.

Agreed.  Implementers will already understand English; you can’t write computer 
software without, since almost all documentation is in English, almost all 
computer languages are based on English, and, to be frank, a large proportion 
of the software market is itself English speaking.  I have yet to meet a 
software developer who didn’t speak English.

That’s not to say that people wouldn’t appreciate a translation of the 
standard, but there are, as others have pointed out, obvious maintenance 
problems, not to mention the issue that plagues some international 
institutions, namely the fact that translations are necessarily non-canonical 
and so those who really care about the details of the rules usually have to 
refer to a version in a particular language (sometimes that language might be 
French rather than English; very occasionally there are two versions declared, 
for political reasons, to both be canonical, which is obviously risky as 
there’s a chance they might differ subtly on some point, perhaps even because 
of punctuation).

In terms of widespread understanding of the standard, which is where I think 
translation is perhaps more important, I’m not sure translating the actual 
standard itself is really the way forward.  It’d be better to ensure that there 
are reliable translations of books like Unicode Demystified or Unicode 
Explained - or, quite possibly, other books aimed more at the general public 
rather than the software community per se.

Kind regards,



Reply via email to