Re: [whatwg/url] Refusing a mix of numeric-only and BIDI domains (#543)

I'm concerned that the URL spec might be moving in the direction of rejecting domain names that are actually in use in the wild.  Gonna bring over my comment from #438:

> Here are some examples of URLs that I have personally observed in the wild (during my research, which involves Web crawling) to contain hostnames which are formally invalid per some RFC or other, but do not rise to the level of a 'serious problem' (as the IDNA2008 RFC uses that term), and which I think should probably be accepted by the URL standard, if only for interop's sake:
>
> ```
> http://r2---sn-gvbxgn-tt1s.googlevideo.com/
> http://r9---sn-i3b7sn7d.googlevideo.com/
> http://lgbt_grani.livejournal.com/
> http://www.mi-ru_mo.bbs.fc2.com/
> http://-friction-.tumblr.com/
> ```

None of these actually involve `xn--`, though.  Should I file a new bug?


-- 
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
https://github.com/whatwg/url/issues/543#issuecomment-1380602157
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.

Message ID: <whatwg/url/issues/543/1380602157@github.com>