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 13:17:58 +0100
Message-ID: <CADnb78iG5Zj3U_9dVBTP8gpOvug3Yifhrog0zss8obJ1U5T_jg@mail.gmail.com>
To: Mark Davis ☕ <mark@macchiato.com>
Cc: Gervase Markham <gerv@mozilla.org>, 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 12:38 PM, Mark Davis ☕ <mark@macchiato.com> wrote:
> There are three major options for clients:
> 1 Move immediately to IDNA2008.
> 2 Stay on IDNA2003.
> 3 Move to TR46+IDNA2008 as a transition to IDNA2008.
> Recent history has shown that the major clients are reluctant to do #1
> because of compatibility concerns. I don't think anyone really wants #2,
> because it has an archaic Unicode version, but people are sticking with that
> if they see #1 as the only other choice.
> That effectively leaves #3. And certainly major players like IE have shown
> that it can be deployed effectively.

2 as deployed is not stuck on an archaic Unicode version. 3 might be
interesting, depending on what variant is chosen. E.g. Gerv has been
suggesting that we in Gecko should implement a different variety from
Internet Explorer... (I'm not a fan.)

Overall though I feel compatibility is downplayed way too much. It's
very bad to break deployed content.

Received on Thursday, 22 August 2013 12:18:29 UTC

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