Re: [web-annotation] Terminology issue: Use IRI as resource identifier

> On 22 Mar 2016, at 22:42, Takeshi Kanai <notifications@github.com> 
wrote:
> 
> +1 to adding a note, but not sure whether putting a link to a github
 comment is acceptable as W3C spec or not.
> 
> 

I think if the link is part of an informative note (and it is), then 
it should be fine.

> As requested, I have checked how Edge worked with the URLs, and 
confirmed that it was the same with the IE11's.
> When I changed the Cafe URL path from "café" to "Café", both IE and 
Edge return non URL encoded strings, I mean it is the same behavior 
with the Japanese URL path case. It appears to me that both browsers 
get redirection messages, when they accessed to the "café" URL, and 
then reached to the URL encoded address. So, the "café" URL results 
are not appropriate examples for this issue.
> 
> To convert from URL encoded host name to IRI friendly host name, I 
tested punycode.js <https://github.com/bestiejs/punycode.js> and found
 no errors, so far.
> Here are the basic steps of the conversion.
> 1. url.hostname = punycode.toUnicode(url.hostname);
> 2. url.pathname = decodeURI(url.pathname);
> 
> It is a workaround, and I am wondering if IRI would be available 
from browsers, via document.IRI or window.id APIs for example, in the 
near future.
> 
> 

I do not know…

I think having the note in the document may/will trigger comments when
 we get the I18N horizontal review. Maybe we will get wiser then…:-)




-- 
GitHub Notification of comment by iherman
Please view or discuss this issue at 
https://github.com/w3c/web-annotation/issues/183#issuecomment-200278154
 using your GitHub account

Received on Wednesday, 23 March 2016 10:06:46 UTC