- From: John P. McCrae <jmccrae@cit-ec.uni-bielefeld.de>
- Date: Thu, 4 Dec 2014 13:11:34 +0100
- To: Felix Sasaki <fsasaki@w3.org>
- Cc: public-bpmlod@w3.org
- Message-ID: <CAC5njqp3J=_YtCNrqwrFu-RkgcmW9t1yUVa=q5=-iZBAsrWfCQ@mail.gmail.com>
Hi, The discussions of the best practice are documented here https://www.w3.org/community/bpmlod/wiki/Best_practises_-_previous_notes 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 e.g., http://www.gооgle.com/somesite <http://www.xn--ggle-55da.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'. Regards, John 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