+ Erik van der Poel, Markus Scherer, Peter Edberg, Michel Suignard
Yes, unfortunately the IETF folks didn't learn from the XML 1.1 debacle;
the downside of making a new version incompatible.
At this point in time, I think the only realistic alternatives are either:
1. Stay with 2003
2. Use TR46 (http://unicode.org/reports/tr46/#Compatibility_Processing)
Mark Davis | Int’l Arch | markdavis@google.com | +1 650-450-9291 / +41
44-668-1282
On Thu, Aug 15, 2013 at 12:43 PM, Anne van Kesteren <annevk@annevk.nl>wrote:
> Hey hey,
>
> So one part that's missing in http://url.spec.whatwg.org/ is domain
> names. As far as I can tell no browser has moved beyond IDNA 2003
> (Opera "regressed" when it adopted Chromium) other than updating their
> Unicode implementation and nobody is interested in implementing IDNA
> 2008 (whatever that means, it doesn't exactly define it all the way
> from code points in an unparsed URL to host bytes).
>
> Given that, my plan is to put that in the specification. IDNA 2003,
> its label separators, the Unicode normalization it uses (but without
> restrictions to a particular Unicode version), ...
>
> Some registrars have moved to IDNA 2008, but this creates security
> issues as pointed out in http://unicode.org/reports/tr46/ and people
> are unlikely to register names that do not work. I suspect long term
> the IETF will have to revisit this, but in the mean time it would be
> good to have accurate documentation for how we want everything around
> URLs to work.
>
> If there's anything I'm missing here, I'd love to hear about it. If
> you want more background reading, I wrote this after doing some
> research last year: http://annevankesteren.nl/2012/11/idna-hell
>
> Kind regards,
>
>
> --
> http://annevankesteren.nl/
>