W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-i18n-core@w3.org > April to June 2010

Re: mediafragment track names and IRIs.

From: Jack Jansen <Jack.Jansen@cwi.nl>
Date: Wed, 23 Jun 2010 09:47:06 +0200
Cc: Yves Lafon <ylafon@w3.org>, "public-i18n-core@w3.org" <public-i18n-core@w3.org>, "public-media-fragment@w3.org" <public-media-fragment@w3.org>
Message-Id: <27176EDF-5510-49D1-B515-291A56B16E79@cwi.nl>
To: "Phillips, Addison" <addison@lab126.com>

On 23 jun 2010, at 07:03, Phillips, Addison wrote:

> Hello Yves and the Media Fragments group,
> 
> The I18N Core WG asked me [1] to convey their endorsement of my personal comments (below). In particular, we feel that you would benefit from using IRI as your primary reference. CharMod [2] recommends it and most recent W3C specs have adopted IRI as the basis for references. Please let us know if you need a review or suggestions on implementation.


Addison,
I am confused, maybe you can enlighten me.

We have based our media fragment URIs on rfc3987. For the one area where things make a difference (encoding track name and ID parameters), this document specifically states that percent-escapes should be interpreted as UTF-8 (last paragraph of section 3.2.2).

But, the CharMod <http://www.w3.org/TR/CharMod-resid> reference you cite refers to the much older URI specification rfc2396 (and then adds stuff to it to say things should be utf-8 encoded). Rfc2396 is indeed "not good enough" for us, as it talks about byte values for percent encoding.

With the CharMod document being in CR since 2004, what is the advantage to using that as our base reference, in stead of the formally standardised 3987?
--
Jack Jansen, <Jack.Jansen@cwi.nl>, http://www.cwi.nl/~jack
If I can't dance I don't want to be part of your revolution -- Emma Goldman
Received on Wednesday, 23 June 2010 07:47:44 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Wednesday, 23 June 2010 07:47:46 GMT