Re: [whatwg/url] Should we forbid U+226E (≮) and U+226F (≯) in hosts? (Issue #733)

Sounds reasonable to me; what do you think, Markus?

On Mon, Jan 16, 2023 at 5:46 AM Anne van Kesteren ***@***.***>
wrote:

> Tentative feedback (not submitted yet):
>
> Please change U+2260 (≠), U+226E (≮), and U+226F (≯) from
> disallowed_STD3_valid to valid.
>
> These code points are not decomposed so they can never conflict with =, <,
> and >. And they are not inherently more confusing than any of the other
> allowed code points, which include hieroglyphics and emoji. These code
> points also work as-is in all browser engines (while < and > are
> forbidden) and on balance preference ought to be given to retaining
> compatibility so end users are not prevented from visiting websites or
> seeing subresources that might use these code points in their domain for
> one reason or another.
>
> For further background and discussion please see
> https://github.com/whatwg/url/issues/733.

>
> Thank you!
>
> —
> Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub
> <https://github.com/whatwg/url/issues/733#issuecomment-1384085197>, or
> unsubscribe
> <https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/ACJLEMFB5PODQ24EIGPNHW3WSVGKZANCNFSM6AAAAAATZOHJVI>
> .
> You are receiving this because you were mentioned.Message ID:
> ***@***.***>
>


-- 
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
https://github.com/whatwg/url/issues/733#issuecomment-1384721057

You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.

Message ID: <whatwg/url/issues/733/1384721057@github.com>