W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-media-fragment@w3.org > June 2010

RE: mediafragment track names and IRIs.

From: Phillips, Addison <addison@lab126.com>
Date: Tue, 15 Jun 2010 14:03:00 -0400
To: 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: <C7A5719F1E562149BA9171F58BEE2CA4129E6FD116@EX-IAD6-B.ant.amazon.com>
Hello Yves,

(Internationalization WG chair hat on)

I have added this to our agenda for our teleconference tomorrow.

(IETF IRI WG chair hat on)

You may wish to raise this issue on the public-iri@w3.org list. We are in the process of revising IRI and one goal is to solve this particular problem, making it possible for a Spec to merely reference IRI and not have to mess with the mechanics of URI mapping, etc.

(personal comment)

Did you consider defining Media Fragments in terms of IRI (RFC 3987) instead or URI (RFC 3986)? RFC 3987 defines a mapping to URI for cases in which such a mapping is needed (as in an HTTP request) and addressing the issues raised in (e.g.) Section 3.1 of that document would help with internationalization edge cases. As noted above, we are in the process of revising the RFC to make it more useful for cases such as yours, but it would probably be beneficial to your overall effort to start from IRI now.



Addison Phillips
Globalization Architect (Lab126)
Chair (W3C I18N, IETF IRI WGs)

Internationalization is not a feature.
It is an architecture.

> -----Original Message-----
> From: public-i18n-core-request@w3.org [mailto:public-i18n-core-
> request@w3.org] On Behalf Of Yves Lafon
> Sent: Tuesday, June 15, 2010 8:17 AM
> To: public-i18n-core@w3.org; public-media-fragment@w3.org
> Subject: mediafragment track names and IRIs.
> Dear i18n gurus,
> The media-fragment WG has the following issue and is requesting
> your help
> on it:
> http://www.w3.org/TR/2010/WD-media-frags-20100413/#naming-track
> defines the way of expressing track names (basically the only thing
> allowing potentially other characters than the one in the us-ascii
> range.
> The WG defined it, in the case of URIs to be utf-8 encoding the
> bytes
> using percent-encoding when needed, plain ascii otherwise.
> Like 'français' -> fran%0A%E7ais
> http://www.example.com/video#track=fran%0A%E7ais
> The issue arise in the context or IRIs, what would be the
> recommended way
> to specify that track name in fragment parameters should be in utf-
> 8, or
> decodable in a predictable manner in utf-8 ?
> Cheers,
> --
> Baroula que barouleras, au tiéu toujou t'entourneras.
>          ~~Yves
Received on Tuesday, 15 June 2010 18:03:37 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 20:52:45 UTC