browser behavioral differences for IDNA
"Martin J. Dürst"
duerst at it.aoyama.ac.jp
Wed Oct 28 10:56:55 CET 2009
On 2009/10/22 4:51, Mark Davis ☕ wrote:
> FYI, UTS 46 points to differences among browsers regarding separator
> (period) behavior. See
[Side note: I think it's not helpful to have sentences such as "While
%2E is outside of the scope of this document," followed by long
explanatory text, in a tech report that should be usable as a spec.
Unfortunately, my impression is that the UTC process seems to lead to
more such text accumulating than some other processes.]
> Markus and I have further investigated some browser behavior, and have also
> found differences regarding normalization behavior for IDNA. See:
This is very interesting, in particular in two respects:
a) For each corrigendum, at least some of the implementations seem to
have adopted it. I very much hope the others will follow. On the IDNAbis
WG list, some people pointed out that if there were RFC errat for the
Unicode corrigenda, that would help implementations. I can submit some
errata if people thing that indeed will help.
b) The entry "FF - 3.2 -- applied twice!" confirms what I have been
claiming since the very time the Normalization Idempotency bug was
found: That the IDNA spec (implicilty) assumed that normalization was
idempotent, and than different implementations might end up with
applying normalization once or twice, and thus differ in their result on
those cases where (before the corrigendum) normalization wasn't
idempotent. All the more reason to apply this corrigendum via an RFC
BTW, what is Opera doing?
> On Tue, Oct 20, 2009 at 12:24,<announcements at unicode.org> wrote:
>> The draft UTS#46 Unicode IDNA Compatible Preprocessing has been updated.
>> There are a number of new review notes pointing out issues and asking for
>> feedback. There are also new tables: one comparing behavior of compatibility
>> and escaped versions of FULL STOP in delimiting labels between different
>> browsers, and one comparing the allowed and disallowed repertoires when
>> processing IDNs according to the IDNA2003, IDNA2008, and UTS #46
>> specifications. There are also many improvements and clarifications of the
>> See: http://www.unicode.org/reports/tr46/
>> Review period closes October 26, 2009.
>> If you have comments for official UTC consideration, please post them by
>> submitting your comments through our feedback& reporting page:
>> If you wish to discuss issues on the Unicode mail list, then please
>> use the following link to subscribe (if necessary). Please be aware
>> that discussion comments on the Unicode mail list are not automatically
>> recorded as input to the UTC. You must use the reporting link above
>> to generate comments for UTC consideration.
>> All of the Unicode Consortium lists are strictly opt-in lists for members
>> or interested users of our standards. We make every effort to remove
>> users who do not wish to receive e-mail from us. To see why you are getting
>> this mail and how to remove yourself from our lists if you want, please
>> see http://www.unicode.org/consortium/distlist.html#announcements
#-# Martin J. Dürst, Professor, Aoyama Gakuin University
#-# http://www.sw.it.aoyama.ac.jp mailto:duerst at it.aoyama.ac.jp
More information about the Idna-update