W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-iri@w3.org > November 2009

FW: notes from IRI meeting

From: Larry Masinter <masinter@adobe.com>
Date: Thu, 5 Nov 2009 09:41:37 -0800
Message-ID: <8B62A039C620904E92F1233570534C9B0118DC8103EA@nambx04.corp.adobe.com>
I was going to try to summarize this issue and its resolution
or hoping the participants would, but I'm not sure what that is.


-----Original Message-----
From: Ian Hickson [mailto:ian@hixie.ch] 
Sent: Tuesday, October 20, 2009 3:49 PM
To: Mark Davis ☕
Cc: Erik van der Poel; Larry Masinter; duerst@it.aoyama.ac.jp
Subject: Re: notes from IRI meeting

On Tue, 20 Oct 2009, Mark Davis �~X~U wrote:
> A post-processed URL would not have ß in it. So if you are using only 
> that, or using reverse-DNS lookup, then the display form is lost and you 
> would see "ss", just like you would see case or variant information 
> lost.
> If we didn't have the IDNA2003 compatibility issue, then retaining ß 
> wouldn't be a problem. We know that the display approach is not perfect; 
> the question is whether it is sufficient to avoid the "same URL going 
> two places" problem, while usually providing the ß/ss distinction to 
> people.

We should make sure we have the buy-in from browser vendors then. If I was 
a browser vendor I'd be very skeptical about a situation in which the 
displayed URL can change without the underlying URL changing, just because 
a script happened to manipulate the URL before the user clicked it.

(Feel free to forward anything I wrote on this thread to a public list.)

Ian Hickson               U+1047E                )\._.,--....,'``.    fL
http://ln.hixie.ch/       U+263A                /,   _.. \   _\  ;`._ ,.
Things that are impossible just take longer.   `._.-(,_..'--(,_..'`-.;.'
Received on Thursday, 5 November 2009 17:42:13 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 20:39:40 UTC