- From: Anne van Kesteren <annevk@annevk.nl>
- Date: Thu, 22 Aug 2013 16:11:15 +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 1:59 PM, Gervase Markham <gerv@mozilla.org> wrote: > Are you sure that "as deployed" is interoperable, or have different > browsers done the "add new Unicode to IDNA2003" step differently? Relatively certain, though I've not tested extensively. Unassigned code points are allowed, so for that Unicode 3.2 does not matter. The other case where Unicode 3.2 matters is normalization. Browsers just use their internal NFKC algorithm for that, which is not bound to any particular version of Unicode, it's whatever the latest version of Unicode is they implement. > Have you been arguing for 2 because you don't want 1? I'm not sure > anyone's been arguing for 1. It's always been about 3. I argued for 1 because I've previously gotten signals from Apple & Google that they don't see much benefit in moving. It seems in the case of Google this might have been incorrect. It's also still unclear to me what the drawback of IDNA2003 is given existing practice. What Vint Cerf keeps saying is true, IDNA2003 is bad because it relies on Unicode 3.2, but I don't think IDNA2003 as written is what's under discussion here which makes matters confusing. What matters is IDNA2003 as implemented and deployed throughout the DNS. On Thu, Aug 22, 2013 at 2:05 PM, Gervase Markham <gerv@mozilla.org> wrote: > AIUI, assuming we write our replacement for the STD3ASCIIRules to > disallow "/" in hostnames, we should be fine. When UseSTD3ASCIIRules is > false, "℁" (U+2101) will map to "a/s", and then the "/" will be disallowed. I think we should write the actual rules in the standard rather than have each implementer come up with his own UseSTD3ASCIIRules replacement. The standard should be fully deterministic. Exact algorithms from a /domain name/ to a /ASCII domain name/ and a /Unicode domain name/. As well as when either would return failure. I.e. the rules we want the URL parser to use (not necessarily the address bar I suppose, that can be "magic"). -- http://annevankesteren.nl/
Received on Thursday, 22 August 2013 15:11:48 UTC