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: Wed, 23 Jun 2010 01:03:12 -0400
To: "Phillips, Addison" <addison@lab126.com>, 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: <C7A5719F1E562149BA9171F58BEE2CA4129E865E98@EX-IAD6-B.ant.amazon.com>
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.

Kind regards (for I18N),

Addison

[1] http://www.w3.org/2010/06/16-core-minutes.html#action01
[2] http://www.w3.org/TR/CharMod-resid


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

Internationalization is not a feature.
It is an architecture.


> -----Original Message-----
> From: Phillips, Addison
> Sent: Tuesday, June 15, 2010 11:03 AM
> To: 'Yves Lafon'; public-i18n-core@w3.org; public-media-
> fragment@w3.org
> Subject: RE: mediafragment track names and IRIs.
> 
> 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.
> 
> Thanks,
> 
> Addison
> 
> 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 Wednesday, 23 June 2010 05:03:46 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Wednesday, 21 September 2011 12:13:39 GMT