- From: Martin Duerst <duerst@it.aoyama.ac.jp>
- Date: Wed, 25 Feb 2009 14:34:14 +0900
- To: (wrong string) ‹N(B <patrik@frobbit.se>, Mark Davis <mark@macchiato.com>
- Cc: "idna-update@alvestrand.no" <idna-update@alvestrand.no>, "Shawn Steele" <Shawn.Steele@microsoft.com>, public-iri@w3.org
[cross-posted to public-iri] At 07:33 09/02/25, Patrik F$BgM(Btstr$B‹N(B wrote: >On 24 feb 2009, at 23.18, Mark Davis wrote: > >> According to IDNA2008, uppercase Unicode is simply illegal. href=" >> http://B$B—D(Bher.de <http://b%c3%bccher.de/>" would simply fail. > >Mark, IDNA2008 is talking specifically about what characters you can >use in the dns protocol (as U-labels, and encoded as A-labels). For me >it is quite something different than saying whether a certain URI will >fail or not. I agree with what Mark said in his followup message: We need to look at the whole picture. Being able to claim that we created an IDAN2008 that works in isolation won't help anybody. >If we talk about domain names, lets talk about domain names. If we are >to talk about URIs, lets talk about URIs. > >I have always been a supporter of your document that I have not seen >any update to (the embryo of an I-D) on how to do mapping and use of >IDNs in URIs. In URIs, IDNs are currently only supported via the fact that for generic URIs, RFC 3986 specifies that %-encoded bytes in the reg-name part are to be interpreted as UTF-8, and must be converted to "IDNA encoding" (read: punycode) for resolution via the DNS. I do not expect that RFC 3986 (a Full IETF Standard) will be updated to say that as part of decoding the %-encoding, one has to do some kind of mapping. As for IRIs, I plan to put out a new draft next week. The previous one expired because of the whole copyright hickup. What I currently plan to say in that draft is that because we are not sure how much mapping will be done at what point, everybody SHOULD produce and pass around IRIs with IDNs in a form that doesn't need any mapping anymore, and that for the IDN part, some mapping MAY happen. Given the currently deployed infrastructure, I think that's the best thing I can do. If anybody has some better ideas, please feel free to tell me. You will realize that if we think that mapping for IDNs should depend on user preferences that may be changing, taking mapping out of IDNs also means keeping it out of IRIs. >But URIs are not domain names. To be able to move forward, I think we >should separate the various issues here. We should separate these issues where they need to be separated. But we should think how these things work together to make sure it will work overall. Regards, Martin. #-#-# Martin J. Du"rst, Assoc. Professor, Aoyama Gakuin University #-#-# http://www.sw.it.aoyama.ac.jp mailto:duerst@it.aoyama.ac.jp
Received on Wednesday, 25 February 2009 05:35:29 UTC