RE: Multi-Language Standards

["Karl Best" <kfbest@earthlink.net>]

> [btusdin@mulberrytech.com:]

> | 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.

Jon says:

> I don't have a good answer for this.

Perhaps we could ask our friends at ebXML what UN CEFACT does. The UN may
have more resources for translations, so may require multiple languages, or
maybe not.

I see no problem with allowing working discussions and drafts to be done in
a local language that best meets the needs of a specific group, but would be
inclined to requiring that final specs to be in English, or whatever the
lingua franca of the standards world is at any given time.

</karl>