From: Brett Zamir (firstname.lastname@example.org)
Date: Tue Feb 02 2010 - 09:15:26 CST
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...
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 https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/5235
> -- further localizers welcome!), I've added support for my own custom
> This protocol lets you use, within regular HTML links, such as the
> following (in place of regular HTTP links):
> 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
> http://brett-zamir.me/tests/unicodeProtocolExamples.html , 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
> https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=539889 ) 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