HTML requires URIs (Re: IDNAbis compatibility)

[Mark Davis]

I'm on vacation this week, but will respond when I get back to work.

I do know that in the test we are handling both the unescaped representation
(å) and the escaped representation (%C3%A5), so we'll have to break the
figures apart.

Mark

On 4/4/07, Harald Alvestrand <harald at alvestrand.no> wrote:
>
> Mark Davis wrote:
> >
> >
> > On 3/15/07, *John C Klensin* <klensin at jck.com
> > <mailto:klensin at jck.com>> wrote:
> >
> > [snip]
> >
> >     I'm trying to understand this experiment.  Normally, an href
> >     that "uses IDNA" would have Punycode labels (A-labels) in its
> >     domain names.
> >
> >
> > I don't know the basis for saying that this would be the "normal"
> > usage. There isn't anything in IDNA2003, unless I'm missing something,
> > that requires or even suggests that it is not perfectly fine to have:
> >
> > <a href="http://ÖBB.at <http://%C3%96BB.at>">Österreichishe
> Bundesbahn</a>
> That text is in the HTML spec.
>
> All versions of HTML that claim that the stuff inside a "href=" is an
> URI (rather than an IRI) implicitly claim that the domain name is in
> A-label form.
> I'm not up to date on HTML updates, but RFC 3987 was published in
> January 2005, so all versions older than that (including HTML 4.01)
> referenced URIs.
>
> After a little searching, I found that details on the recommended way of
> handling those errors are in
> <http://www.w3.org/TR/html401/appendix/notes.html#non-ascii-chars> - but
> they're still errors.
>
> Do you have stats on how many of the 831.000 cases you identified were
> in A-label form rather than "possibly conformant U-label" form? That
> would tell us something about how much standards are adhered to....
>
>                       Harald
>
>
>


-- 
Mark
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.alvestrand.no/pipermail/idna-update/attachments/20070404/6ca1c92d/attachment.html