- From: Martin J. Dürst <duerst@it.aoyama.ac.jp>
- Date: Mon, 23 Nov 2009 20:05:34 +0900
- To: Erik van der Poel <erikv@google.com>
- CC: Shawn Steele <Shawn.Steele@microsoft.com>, Larry Masinter <masinter@adobe.com>, "PUBLIC-IRI@W3.ORG" <PUBLIC-IRI@w3.org>, Pete Resnick <presnick@qualcomm.com>, Ted Hardie <ted.ietf@gmail.com>
Hello Erik, I agree that for HTTP proxies, and for the Host: header in the HTTP protocol, at the current point in time, using punycode is the most prudent thing to do. I don't have any problem putting this as an example into the new spec, but I don't want this current state of affairs to prohibit implementations to move to a cleaner state. On the other hand, I also have to agree with Shawn. The various ways in which IRIs and URIs and their components can be used within an application are simply too many for us to prescribe "one true way" to handle this. In my own implementation experience, when I added IDNA support to Amaya, I relied on it to convert IRIs internally to use %-encoding (without trying to analyze the IRI further), and then caught that %-encoding deep down in libwww (the network library on which Amaya relies) and converted it back to UTF-8 and then to punycode. I expect that other applications may do similar things, or they may do completely different things, because they have a different structure. The various buggy behaviors that I got when testing %-encoding in domain names with Firefox and Safari seem to support Shawn's point that internally to the application, various different forms and conversions may exist. Regards, Martin. On 2009/11/22 13:24, Erik van der Poel wrote: > On Sat, Nov 21, 2009 at 11:02 AM, Shawn Steele > <Shawn.Steele@microsoft.com> wrote: >> I'm still not sure that requiring punicode for URIs is helpful. >> [...] >> So saying "you MUST" do .... when converting an IRI to a URI doesn't >> seem very helpful to me. If IDN use doesn't currently do that already >> I don't think people are going to change the system, risking >> instability, to fix (or maybe break) a downgrade scenario for >> compatibility in older software. > > One scenario where an IRI is converted to a URI that contains a host > name is when a browser is using an HTTP proxy. (When there is no > proxy, the browser sends a relative URI in the GET request and puts > the host name in the Host header.) > > So I tried IE8 with an HTTP proxy, and it turns out that it converts > the host name to Punycode. Do you think IE9 should send the host name > in UTF-8 when using a proxy? What if the proxy is old, and doesn't > know how to convert from UTF-8 to Punycode? > > Erik > -- #-# Martin J. Dürst, Professor, Aoyama Gakuin University #-# http://www.sw.it.aoyama.ac.jp mailto:duerst@it.aoyama.ac.jp
Received on Monday, 23 November 2009 11:06:21 UTC