Re: Multi-Language Standards

[Jon Bosak <bosak@boethius.eng.sun.com>]

[btusdin@mulberrytech.com:]

| It seems to me that just as a TC should declare, as it is forming,
| what its goals are, the target schedule of meetings and products,
| and the locations of any planned meeting, it is reasonable for the
| group to declare the language in which it will do business.
| People who might otherwise be interested in a group working on the
| XML-for-PerlDivers, for example, might not be interested in
| joining this TC if the work is to be done in Malay.

Good idea!

| OASIS could declare an official language. As far as I know OASIS
| has been operating in English but has no official policy on
| language(s).  We could require that all Committee Specifications
| be translated into the official language as part of the process of
| nominating them to be OASIS Standards.  However, this is likely to
| drive many potential OASIS members away, including some Japanese
| (who want to work in Japanese and are likely to want to publish
| their specifications and standards in Japanese).  I find this
| unattractive.  But I find the prospect of being asked to vote for
| or against an OASIS Specification I can't read equally
| unattractive.

I don't have a good answer for this.

The alternative is regional or language-community federation
(which is I think what the Japanese folks I spoke to last year
wanted anyway).  Should we content ourselves with defining an
apparatus for mutual recognition of standards developed within
separately run regional organizations?

Jon