Re: [idn] IDNs in IE and Google

["CONFIRM.TO" <info@postel.co.kr>]

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" <jseng@pobox.org.sg>
To: "Soobok Lee" <lsb@postel.co.kr>
Cc: "Michel Suignard" <michelsu@windows.microsoft.com>; "Stephane Bortzmeyer" <bortzmeyer@nic.fr>; "Georg Ochsner" <georg@ochsner.de>; <idn@ops.ietf.org>
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" <michelsu@windows.microsoft.com>
> > To: "Stephane Bortzmeyer" <bortzmeyer@nic.fr>; "Georg Ochsner" <georg@ochsner.de>
> > Cc: <idn@ops.ietf.org>
> > 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
> > 
> > 
> >