W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-bpmlod@w3.org > December 2014

Re: Best practices related to IDN

From: John P. McCrae <jmccrae@cit-ec.uni-bielefeld.de>
Date: Thu, 4 Dec 2014 13:11:34 +0100
Message-ID: <CAC5njqp3J=_YtCNrqwrFu-RkgcmW9t1yUVa=q5=-iZBAsrWfCQ@mail.gmail.com>
To: Felix Sasaki <fsasaki@w3.org>
Cc: public-bpmlod@w3.org

The discussions of the best practice are documented here

The reason for preferring ASCII over IRIs are for compatibility... the
reason to prefer using ASCII domain names is to reduce the possibilities
for spoofing attack


http://www.gооgle.com/somesite <http://www.xn--ggle-55da.com/somesite> (

Is much more dangerous in the domain name than in the path (where you can
only spoof data on the same server/domain).

For my understanding, the decision is really a compromise between avoiding
IRIs (still the preferred option when possible) and allowing people to use
readable URIs in non-Latin scripts. Furthermore, domain names demonstrate
some degree or ownership or responsibility for the data, and it is better
that this is stated in a script that most web users can read to build trust
in the dataset, i.e., from your example only a small amount of people would
be able to work with the string '本屋さん' but most would do better with
'honyasan' or 'japanese-book-store'.


On Thu, Dec 4, 2014 at 12:01 PM, Felix Sasaki <fsasaki@w3.org> wrote:

> Hi all,
> at the Internationalization Working Group meeting in October (part of W3C
> TPAC) I was asked by I18N WG participants about our best practices. In
> particular it seems that we recommend the use of IRIs, that is non ASCII
> characters in the path part, but not IDNs, that is non ASCII in the domain
> part. That means:
> 1) The following is not recommended
> http://example.本屋さん.com/作家/夏目漱
> <http://example.xn--48jwgy65kjdj.com/%E4%BD%9C%E5%AE%B6/%E5%A4%8F%E7%9B%AE%E6%BC%B1%E7%9F%B3>
> 2) The following is recommended
> http://example.japanese-book-store.com/作家/夏目漱
> Is this really our latest thinking? If yes, that is the rationale behind
> this?
> Thanks,
> Felix
Received on Thursday, 4 December 2014 12:12:03 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 19:08:42 UTC