convert to punycode: SHOULD or MAY (was: RE: Are IDNs allowed in http IRIs?)

Hello Michel,

Regarding the SHOULD vs. MAY for the use of punycode in the conversion
from IRIs to URIs, I have created an issue (punycodeSHOULD-23), and
based on the discussion, in particular also Larry's comment, I have
chosen to make a compromize. The text now says 'MAY' in the general
case, but then says "This conversion SHOULD be used when the goal is to
maximize interoperability with legacy URI resolvers."
(where the second part of this sentence is from Roy's draft).

Please tell me if that's acceptable for you.

Regards,    Martin.

At 00:23 04/03/19 -0800, Michel Suignard wrote:

>Adam, I think you have a valid point, I would however make a simpler 
>suggestion, which is two fold:
>
>- introduce the concept of IRI used as presentation element of URI 
>protocol element. In that sense http://jos$Bq(Bexample.net/ is a presentation 
>element for the following protocol element http://xn--jos-dma.example.net/ 
>and as you noted http://jos%C3%A9.example.net/ is not a correct URI (per 
>RFC 2616 referring to host itself defined in RFC 2396). I have suggested 
>text in that sense to the IRI main editor (Martin). Having the concept of 
>presentation element validates http IRIs which exist de facto, whatever we 
>like it or not.
>
>- add text in the IRI spec saying the following:
><<
>When an IRI is converted to a URI, the conversion SHOULD use 
>scheme-specific knowledge to convert appropriate components where the 
>scheme syntax prevents the usage of percent-encoded text into such 
>components. Lack of scheme-specific knowledge (or failure to use it) can 
>cause valid IRIs to be converted to invalid URIs that contain 
>percent-encoded non-ASCII text where they are not permitted.
> >>
>It is my opinion that anybody in its right mind would implement IRI to URI 
>mapping considering all the schemes where 'host' is used and map 
>accordingly (ie use Punycode). My text avoids direct reference to ACE 
>which is in my opinion unnecessary in the IRI spec and also makes the 
>suggestion to use scheme aware mapping much stronger (SHOULD instead of 
>MAY). It is a SHOULD instead of a MUST simply because a scheme may be 
>updated in the future, making the scheme awareness eventually not necessary.
>
>Michel

Received on Monday, 29 March 2004 14:43:48 UTC