Re: [whatwg/url] Should we forbid U+226E (≮) and U+226F (≯) in hosts? (Issue #733) from Anne van Kesteren on 2023-01-14 (public-webapps-github@w3.org from January 2023)

From: Anne van Kesteren <notifications@github.com>
Date: Fri, 13 Jan 2023 22:53:13 -0800
To: whatwg/url <url@noreply.github.com>
Cc: Subscribed <subscribed@noreply.github.com>
Message-ID: <whatwg/url/issues/733/1382677545@github.com>

Thanks, I'll file feedback as well as for #543 in time for Unicode's April meeting.

In my experience of trying to make IDNA interoperable over the past decade browsers have not been super opinionated on ToASCII. (Now ToUnicode is another matter, but that algorithm isn't directly exposed.) As long as we err on the side of compatibility, i.e., making hosts resolve, I think it should work out.

And apparently the IETF hasn't been opinionated enough either as according to a comment in that other issue they gave up on standardizing the details of client behavior with IDNA2008. So I'm very thankful we have UTS46.

-- 
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
https://github.com/whatwg/url/issues/733#issuecomment-1382677545
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.

Message ID: <whatwg/url/issues/733/1382677545@github.com>

Received on Saturday, 14 January 2023 06:53:26 UTC