- From: Anne van Kesteren <annevk@annevk.nl>
- Date: Thu, 22 Aug 2013 12:11:55 +0100
- To: Gervase Markham <gerv@mozilla.org>
- Cc: Mark Davis ☕ <mark@macchiato.com>, Shawn Steele <Shawn.Steele@microsoft.com>, IDNA update work <idna-update@alvestrand.no>, "PUBLIC-IRI@W3.ORG" <public-iri@w3.org>, "uri@w3.org" <uri@w3.org>, John C Klensin <klensin@jck.com>, Peter Saint-Andre <stpeter@stpeter.im>, Marcos Sanz <sanz@denic.de>, Vint Cerf <vint@google.com>, "www-tag.w3.org" <www-tag@w3.org>
On Thu, Aug 22, 2013 at 12:02 PM, Gervase Markham <gerv@mozilla.org> wrote: > It's not been possible to register names like ☺☺☺.com for some time now; > that's a big clue. I don't think it is. There's sites out that rely on underscore working in subdomains. You cannot register a domain name with an underscore. > (Are your friends really using http://xn--74h.example.com/ ?) Yeah (with "example" replaced). Renders fine in Safari, too. > IIRC, we must have broken a load of URLs when we decided that %-encoding > in URLs should always be interpreted as UTF-8 (in RFC 3986), whereas > beforehand it depended on the charset of the page or form producing the > link. Why did we do that? Because the new way was better for the future, > and some breakage was acceptable to attain that goal. Actually, I don't think we did. And the reason for that is that the non-ASCII usage was primarily in the query string. And as it happens, we still use the character encoding to go from code points to percent-escaped byte code points there. The IETF STD doesn't admit to this, which is part of the reason why we have http://url.spec.whatwg.org/ now. -- http://annevankesteren.nl/
Received on Thursday, 22 August 2013 11:12:26 UTC