W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-tag@w3.org > January 2014

Re: Standardizing on IDNA 2003 in the URL Standard

From: Anne van Kesteren <annevk@annevk.nl>
Date: Thu, 16 Jan 2014 11:48:45 +0000
Message-ID: <CADnb78gFMrjzVyBaUTJWw8_6d6bjDUajo5kNr++WWiSKcSoNUg@mail.gmail.com>
To: Gervase Markham <gerv@mozilla.org>
Cc: John C Klensin <klensin@jck.com>, yaojk <yaojk@cnnic.cn>, Paul Hoffman <paul.hoffman@vpnc.org>, "PUBLIC-IRI@W3.ORG" <public-iri@w3.org>, "uri@w3.org" <uri@w3.org>, IDNA update work <idna-update@alvestrand.no>, "www-tag.w3.org" <www-tag@w3.org>
On Thu, Jan 16, 2014 at 11:36 AM, Gervase Markham <gerv@mozilla.org> wrote:
> On 16/01/14 11:17, Anne van Kesteren wrote:
>> It's not worse if it's fully backwards compatible and mostly
>> interoperable across all major clients. At that point the standard is
>> just wrong.
> And having a standard fixed to Unicode 3.2 is not also "just wrong"?

The point is that in practice, it isn't fixed to Unicode 3.2. I have
yet to encounter an IDNA2003 implementation that does that. It turns
out the setup we have in practice is a compatible evolution.

> And I refer you to my comments above. Problems like lowercasing (for
> better or worse) are punted by IDNA2008 and are labelled as an
> application-level problem. In practice, what everyone should do for best
> interoperability is implement the same application-level mappings, and
> implement ones which are as compatible as possible with IDNA2003.
> Hence.... UTS46.

I think I did mention earlier on UTS46 might be okay, depending on the
details. I am hoping to hear from Mark on the matter.

Received on Thursday, 16 January 2014 11:49:14 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 7 January 2015 15:33:24 UTC