Processing error `title` and `detail` need lang/dir guidance about vc-bitstring-status-list HOT 5 OPEN

https://www.w3.org/2024/02/08-i18n-minutes.html#t08

from vc-bitstring-status-list.

@aphillips would I18N be okay w/ using the guidance here: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc9457#section-1

Specifically,

When they are conveyed in an HTTP response, the contents of problem details can be negotiated using proactive negotiation; see Section 12.1 of [HTTP]. In particular, the language used for human-readable strings (such as those in title and description) can be negotiated using the Accept-Language request header field (Section 12.5.4 of [HTTP]), although that negotiation may still result in a non-preferred, default representation being returned.

The processing errors are meant to be conveyed via HTTP or via a software library to a developer. They are not meant to be exposed to non-developers.

from vc-bitstring-status-list.

Yes, when returning values in a header like that, you absolutely can reference language negotiation, including RFC9547. There is no requirement that a given request be localized into all languages everywhere--or localized at all, for that matter. Indicating that language negotiation based on Accept-Language is what should happen might take the form of a note in your spec.

The processing errors are meant to be conveyed via HTTP or via a software library to a developer. They are not meant to be exposed to non-developers.

Understood. I18N notes that developers are people too. Also, such error messages sometimes do get shown to non-developer users, in spite of specifications saying that they shouldn't be 😉

FWIW, our guidance lives here and is consistent with your proposal.

Thanks!

from vc-bitstring-status-list.