Hi Mark, Thanks for sharing the document. I note that you believe part of the task is to cover cases like "example.com" encountered in plain text, even when a scheme is not present. At least in language contexts with which I am familiar, there are a lot of potential non-URIs that have similar patterns. With the likely growth of gTLDs, using the presence of a known TLD string will cease to be an effective marker for this. Is it your thought that running this version of the UBA on all such strings will be effective, even if they do not happen to be URIs, because its processing rules are derived from those which would run on plain text? In other words, if I run into the equivalent of "Find.me" in a RTL context, I don't have to know whether this is from the authority section of a URI or not? regards, Ted Hardie On Tue, Apr 26, 2011 at 4:22 PM, Mark Davis ☕ <mark@macchiato.com> wrote: > Here are some rough thoughts on how we could handle bidi IRIs. > > http://goo.gl/QwSoo > > Feedback is welcome. > > Mark > * > * > On Wed, Apr 20, 2011 at 23:20, Shawn Steele <Shawn.Steele@microsoft.com>wrote: > >> I'm wondering what the current thinking around BIDI IRIs is? A few >> things in draft-ietf-iri-3987bis-05 jump out at me. >> >> >> >> >> >> -Shawn >> >> >> >> >> >> http://blogs.msdn.com/shawnste >> >> >> > >
Received on Wednesday, 27 April 2011 00:32:01 UTC