W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-archive@w3.org > April 2014

Re: IDNA, IRIs, and ://..../ authority field

From: Anne van Kesteren <annevk@annevk.nl>
Date: Tue, 8 Apr 2014 12:54:24 -0700
Message-ID: <CADnb78hhTboj4Sj2=nYr4ckJMzfE4_LZZt6WrbM_vMGwWHckGg@mail.gmail.com>
To: Larry Masinter <masinter@adobe.com>
Cc: "Phillips, Addison" <addison@lab126.com>, Martin Dürst <duerst@it.aoyama.ac.jp>, Leif Halvard Silli <lhs@malform.no>, "Dave Thaler (dthaler@microsoft.com)" <dthaler@microsoft.com>, "Robin Berjon (robin@w3.org)" <robin@w3.org>, Mark Davis ☕ <mark@macchiato.com>, "www-archive@w3.org" <www-archive@w3.org>
On Tue, Apr 8, 2014 at 11:55 AM, Larry Masinter <masinter@adobe.com> wrote:
> What is the idea for new schemes that want to use IDNs in the authority field? Is it to update the URL standard to include them in the list? Or are they not supported?  Should the registration template include some information about whether they're intended to have the host treated as an IDN?

If they are http-like they could be added to the list, or they need to
be handled at the application layer rather than the URL parsing layer.

No disagreement by the way that this is rather icky.

Another alternative, for non-http-like URLs, would be to treat them
specially in the parser. So far I tried to limit special parsing rules
to the limited number of schemes and give those the same parsing
rules, but we could opt for other strategies. It really depends on
where you want to optimize, what you want APIs to look like, etc.

Received on Tuesday, 8 April 2014 19:54:53 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 7 January 2015 14:44:29 UTC