Internationalization

Message architecture & MessageFormat

Structured messages, variables, selection logic, and authoring rules for grammatical, safe, maintainable multilingual interfaces.

The challenge

Concatenated fragments and presentation-only placeholders cannot express plural, gender, case, agreement, or locale-dependent variants reliably—and can expose injection and fallback failures.

We treat a message as a typed interface between code, content, and grammar. Variables, selectors, fallbacks, escaping, and ownership are explicit rather than hidden in prose conventions.

The design can support current ICU-style messages while preparing a controlled path toward MessageFormat 2 where ecosystem maturity permits.

How we work

Local insight. Technical evidence. A system your team can run.

We adapt the depth and sequence to your product or model stage, modalities, language scope, and internal team.

Phase 01

Audit message construction

Find concatenation, overloaded keys, untyped variables, unsafe markup, missing variants, and runtime fallback behavior.

Phase 02

Define the message contract

Specify schemas, selectors, annotations, escaping, fallback, translator context, lint rules, and versioning.

Phase 03

Migrate and prove

Convert representative flows, add parser and rendering tests, validate difficult languages, and sequence adoption.

Typical outputs

What your team can use.

  • Message-system architecture
  • Variable and selector conventions
  • Migration examples and lint rules
  • Multilingual message regression suite
Before the brief

Questions about message architecture & messageformat

What the work means, where people and AI fit, how quality is judged, and what changes the estimate.

What is message architecture & messageformat?

Structured messages, variables, selection logic, and authoring rules for grammatical, safe, maintainable multilingual interfaces. In practice, the work is bounded by a defined product or model decision, named audiences and locales, representative inputs, and acceptance criteria that can be reviewed.

When does a team need message architecture & messageformat?

Concatenated fragments and presentation-only placeholders cannot express plural, gender, case, agreement, or locale-dependent variants reliably—and can expose injection and fallback failures. The useful starting point is the smallest representative flow that can expose the cause, impact, and ownership of the problem.

What does a message architecture & messageformat engagement include?

Audit message construction: Find concatenation, overloaded keys, untyped variables, unsafe markup, missing variants, and runtime fallback behavior. Define the message contract: Specify schemas, selectors, annotations, escaping, fallback, translator context, lint rules, and versioning. Migrate and prove: Convert representative flows, add parser and rendering tests, validate difficult languages, and sequence adoption.

What should we provide before message architecture & messageformat starts?

The most useful inputs are representative repositories and builds, architecture and content-flow documentation, supported and planned locales, design-system components, and known defects and release constraints. Admas can begin with a partial package, but missing context, rights, access, owners, or acceptance criteria will be made visible in the plan rather than treated as harmless assumptions.

What does Admas deliver for message architecture & messageformat?

Typical outputs include message-system architecture, variable and selector conventions, migration examples and lint rules, and multilingual message regression suite. Deliverables are adapted to the team that must use them, with decisions, evidence, limitations, owners, and next actions made explicit.

How is the quality of message architecture & messageformat evaluated?

Quality is measured against the real task and risk. Relevant evidence can include locale-sensitive test coverage, severity and recurrence of internationalization defects, script and format correctness, time needed to add a locale, and reduction in one-off code paths. Sampling, severity rules, reviewers, adjudication, and pass or fail thresholds should be agreed before the result is used as a release decision.

Can AI replace the human work in message architecture & messageformat?

Static analysis, pseudolocalization, property tests, visual regression, and locale-aware fixtures can expose repeatable failures. Engineers and language specialists still have to interpret ambiguous behavior, test real scripts and user journeys, and decide whether the product experience is correct. The right allocation depends on consequence, content stability, available references, language coverage, reversibility, and the cost of a plausible but wrong result.

How much does message architecture & messageformat cost?

The estimate changes with system and repository size, number of platforms and surfaces, architecture access, locale and script risk, depth of implementation or testing, and required documentation and enablement. Pricing should distinguish setup and discovery, repeatable units, specialist or engineering time, independent review, management, and external costs. A low unit price is not comparable if it excludes the QA cycle or shifts rework back to the buyer.

Keep exploring
Bring us the brief

Make message architecture & messageformat move.

Tell us what you are building, which modalities and languages matter, and where progress is blocked.

Build a project brief