W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > uri@w3.org > August 2013

Re: Standardizing on IDNA 2003 in the URL Standard

From: Anne van Kesteren <annevk@annevk.nl>
Date: Thu, 22 Aug 2013 12:11:55 +0100
Message-ID: <CADnb78jrSNP9_CUcrLUTko5vtO6=1QfnHa1_DkonxRxgKvLsPA@mail.gmail.com>
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 12:02 PM, Gervase Markham <gerv@mozilla.org> wrote:
> It's not been possible to register names like ☺☺☺.com for some time now;
> that's a big clue.

I don't think it is. There's sites out that rely on underscore working
in subdomains. You cannot register a domain name with an underscore.


> (Are your friends really using http://xn--74h.example.com/ ?)

Yeah (with "example" replaced). Renders fine in Safari, too.


> IIRC, we must have broken a load of URLs when we decided that %-encoding
> in URLs should always be interpreted as UTF-8 (in RFC 3986), whereas
> beforehand it depended on the charset of the page or form producing the
> link. Why did we do that? Because the new way was better for the future,
> and some breakage was acceptable to attain that goal.

Actually, I don't think we did. And the reason for that is that the
non-ASCII usage was primarily in the query string. And as it happens,
we still use the character encoding to go from code points to
percent-escaped byte code points there. The IETF STD doesn't admit to
this, which is part of the reason why we have
http://url.spec.whatwg.org/ now.


-- 
http://annevankesteren.nl/
Received on Thursday, 22 August 2013 11:12:29 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:25:16 UTC