- From: Larry Masinter <masinter@adobe.com>
- Date: Thu, 5 Nov 2009 09:41:37 -0800
- To: "PUBLIC-IRI@W3.ORG" <PUBLIC-IRI@w3.org>
I was going to try to summarize this issue and its resolution or hoping the participants would, but I'm not sure what that is. Larry -- http://larry.masinter.net -----Original Message----- From: Ian Hickson [mailto:ian@hixie.ch] Sent: Tuesday, October 20, 2009 3:49 PM To: Mark Davis ☕ Cc: Erik van der Poel; Larry Masinter; duerst@it.aoyama.ac.jp Subject: Re: notes from IRI meeting On Tue, 20 Oct 2009, Mark Davis �~X~U wrote: > > A post-processed URL would not have ß in it. So if you are using only > that, or using reverse-DNS lookup, then the display form is lost and you > would see "ss", just like you would see case or variant information > lost. > > If we didn't have the IDNA2003 compatibility issue, then retaining ß > wouldn't be a problem. We know that the display approach is not perfect; > the question is whether it is sufficient to avoid the "same URL going > two places" problem, while usually providing the ß/ss distinction to > people. We should make sure we have the buy-in from browser vendors then. If I was a browser vendor I'd be very skeptical about a situation in which the displayed URL can change without the underlying URL changing, just because a script happened to manipulate the URL before the user clicked it. (Feel free to forward anything I wrote on this thread to a public list.) -- Ian Hickson U+1047E )\._.,--....,'``. fL http://ln.hixie.ch/ U+263A /, _.. \ _\ ;`._ ,. Things that are impossible just take longer. `._.-(,_..'--(,_..'`-.;.'
Received on Thursday, 5 November 2009 17:42:13 UTC