Re: [whatwg/url] DNS (and other naming systems) vs the host parser (#397)

@annevk Its perhaps the fact that our URL parsing is trying to support more than strictly the WHATWG notion of hosts, and trying to figure out when/how those are canonicalized as such. I would be surprised if @achristensen07 doesn't run into a similar issue re: NSURL.

For example, I recently was asked to look into having `GURL` (our internal URL representation that serves as our parser/canonicalizer) support `smb://` URL parsing (not for the intent of web exposure), and to support the NetBIOS naming scheme. We're not keen to bifurcate URL parsing/canonicalization more than absolutely necessary (i.e. we're not keen to have entirely separate parse/canonicalization for Web vs Chrome usages of URLs). The same nominally applies to things like `chrome-extension` or other UA-extended schemes.

Even within the space of certificates, during certificate linting, it was highlighted that UAs' notion of IDNs and RFC 5280s notions are non-aligned - see specifically [RFC 5280, Section 7.2](https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc5280#section-7.2) and note well the use of [RFC 3490](https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc3490), the reference to which was explicitly not updated to point to [RFC 5890](https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc5890) or [RFC 5891](https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc5891)

I think for host, treating it as opaque (but defining the character space and escaping rules) is a desirable goal, but acknowledge that holds a host of issues regarding U-Label vs A-Label and determining when IDN policies apply.

-- 
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
https://github.com/whatwg/url/issues/397#issuecomment-395732189