IRI's authors can clarify IRI's exact scope. Would they? "I18ned Resource" may include non-english file/directory resources, because a filename is a resource identifier.
file: support is also in MOZILLA, not only in MS. href= src= tag values can have file: protocol URLs is in both MSIE and MOzilla. They are processed by the same url handling dll/routines in MSIE and MOzilla... You can intemix http: and file: protocol urls in a single html page. file: protocol url can have" file://10.1.1.4/document/brief.ppt". What's the difference between this and http://10.1.1.4/document/brief.ppt ? one is served by NETBIOS over TCP/IP, and the other is by HTTP. That's all. You can change 10.1.1.4 into ascii domain names or even IDN . I bet IRI authors won't love the idea to separete file: from other protocols words like http/ftp... Soobok Lee ----- Original Message ----- From: "James Seng" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "Soobok Lee" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Cc: "Michel Suignard" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; "Stephane Bortzmeyer" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; "Georg Ochsner" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Wednesday, January 28, 2004 10:20 AM Subject: Re: [idn] IDNs in IE and Google > Dont confuse ability to have "non-english characters in URL like file:" > with IRI. The former "support" in MS is not IRI. > > ps: IRI is not a generic term for internationalization. it refers to a > work-in-progress by W3C. > > -James Seng > > Soobok Lee wrote: > > ----- Original Message ----- > > From: "Michel Suignard" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > To: "Stephane Bortzmeyer" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; "Georg Ochsner" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > Cc: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > Sent: Friday, January 23, 2004 10:31 AM > > Subject: RE: [idn] IDNs in IE and Google > > > > > > > >>Concerning IRI, it is not a matter of 'preference'. If you present > >>something like a URI containing a host name presented in non ASCII > >>repertoire, you are in fact using an illegal URI per RFC2396 definition. > >>At minimum you need to have a clear definition on how such 'extended' > >>URI (in other words IRI) are mapped to legal URI. This is a big part of > >>the IRI draft spec currently worked on. The draft is at > >>http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-duerst-iri-05.txt. The same > >>goes for http, and any other URI schemes presented in browser user > >>interface. > > > > > > I know the importance of IRI effort. > > > > BTW, MSIE/Mozilla seem to support IRI concept in "file:" protocol already. > > file: protocol URL had been supporting NETBIOS PC Name and File/Directory Pathname > > in ***LOCAL CHARSET ENCODING***, not in UTF-8 encoding from very long time ago. > > That works in Windows OS and even in LINUX. > > > > Moreover, Most asian HTML homepages are published in local charset encoding > > like euc-kr, big5 and gb2312 etc. UTF-8-encoded HTML pages are extremely *RARE* > > in ASIA. > > > > Need for backward compatibility to already deployed IRI-concept and > > Unicode<->Local charset conversion layer may lay another complexity to IRI effort. > > > > Just comparing two IRIs won't be a trivial task, if they can be in two diifferent > > encodings. > > > > IMHO, IRI efforts deserve a WG. I will resume tracking the progress of IRI > > spec.. :-) > > > > Soobok Lee > > > > > >
