Re: Uniocde protocol or URNs?

From: Brett Zamir (
Date: Tue Feb 02 2010 - 09:15:26 CST

  • Next message: spir: "starters and non-starters"

    I thought I might at least get a reply on this one... There's really no
    interest in defining a custom protocol or URN schemes for Unicode
    characters or categories so that websites (esp. language-centric ones)
    or other environments could make links which would trigger the opening
    of a specialized Unicode viewing program?

    In case anyone was trying out my specific extension which implements
    this preliminary attempt at a protocol and was having trouble, there is
    a known issue with the extension having some layout problems on certain
    systems; still trying to figure out what's going on with it, as it works
    fine on my own...

    best wishes,

    On 1/28/2010 11:29 AM, Brett Zamir wrote:
    > Hello all,
    > In the latest version (2.6.2) of my Firefox add-on, Unicode Input
    > Tool/Converter (at
    > -- further localizers welcome!), I've added support for my own custom
    > protocol.
    > This protocol lets you use, within regular HTML links, such as the
    > following (in place of regular HTTP links):
    > x-unicode:?find;char=a
    > x-unicode:?searchName;string=Latin%20letter
    > x-unicode:?searchkDefinition;string=house
    > Clicking on such a link will trigger the opening of the Firefox
    > extension so that you can view the characters in context, either
    > within their Unicode range (the first example), or among all the other
    > characters that match the criterion (the second and third examples).
    > You can see some examples at
    > , though you
    > must first install the latest version of the extension (2.6.2) for
    > this to work.
    > I was wondering whether the Unicode Consortium were interested in:
    > 1. standardizing on a protocol such as that above (removing the
    > need for the custom "x-" prefix)? and/or
    > 2. adopting a URN namespace to support specification of Unicode
    > characters and names or possibly ranges and categories as well
    > The protocol would allow for specification of specific behaviors in
    > addition to targeting specific characters and ranges (e.g., it might
    > indicate which fields to display), while a URN would be confined to
    > identifying a particular letter, range, or category. (In hindsight, I
    > probably should have split up search and Name or kDefinition into
    > key-value pairs rather than a single identifier.)
    > Incidentally, I've filed a bug with Mozilla (at
    > ) to suggest
    > better support for URNs and protocol handlers so that multiple
    > extensions could offer themselves as choices to handle these. Feel
    > free to vote on the bug if you are in favor of it.
    > Any interest in making a standard protocol or URN?
    > best wishes,
    > Brett Zamir

    This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Tue Feb 02 2010 - 09:21:41 CST