HTTP and IDN, was RE: Nameprep input vs output

Michel Suignard michelsu at windows.microsoft.com
Thu Jan 11 09:03:37 CET 2007


>
>As you know, there are already HTML documents on the Web that include
>HTTP URIs that use IDNs (and MSIE 7 supports them). I have heard
>rumors that an HTTP RFC update activity may have started. Do you know
>whether that is true and whether there is anyone there to discuss the
>addition of IDNs to the spec for HTTP URIs (or should I say IRIs)?

Hi Erik,
In HTTP URIs, IDNs should only exist in Punycode notation (but they may also be % encoded). If a 'HTTP URI' contains IDN in native form you are really dealing with IRIs which can be handled as presentation forms of the underlying and equivalent URIs. The IRI RFC was drafted to make easy for user agent to process URI and IRI that way. There is much more details on the IRI RFC (3987). I encourage you to read the text and raise any issues you may find. Martin is also on this list and will also be interested, I am sure.

I have not been following discussion about an HTTP RFC update activity. If native IDN and in general non ASCII characters were added to HTTP, it really relates to the discussion of using IRI as protocol elements for a new scheme (not really HTTP anymore). Keeping the IRI at the presentation layer as of today while still maintaining http as we know it for the core protocol/scheme seems to me prudent, but we are getting seriously OT here. 

On another hand, the discussion in this list may have some consequence for IRI, especially concerning bidirectional issue as IRI uses the stringprep bidi restriction almost word by word.

Michel


More information about the Idna-update mailing list