recommending URIs, A-labels and LDH-labels in HTML

[Vint Cerf]

yes this comes from having two equivalent representations of the same  
thing... I wonder how many of these gotcha's are waiting?

v

On Jan 31, 2008, at 10:58 PM, John C Klensin wrote:

>
>
> --On Thursday, 31 January, 2008 16:23 -0800 Erik van der Poel
> <erikv at google.com> wrote:
>
>> On Jan 31, 2008 12:53 PM, John C Klensin <klensin at jck.com>
>> wrote:
>>> (2) You should push, where possible, for URIs and IRIs in the
>>> documents you are indexing to contain final-form names
>>> (A-labels or U-labels).  There really should be very little
>> ...
>
>> Yes, we could do something like that in our Webmaster Help
>> Center. Actually, one reason we would give for using URIs and
>> A-labels (and LDH-labels) is that IE 6 does not support IDNA
>> and there are still a lot of IE 6 users.
>
> There is one extra issue with this that may go with the advice.
> For years, it has been a common practice for HTML pages to
> contain links constructed approximately like
>
>   <a href="http://foo.bar.baz/">http://foo.bar.baz/
>
> I keep expecting browsers to start testing for identity of those
> two strings as an anti-phishing mechanism and popping up
> warnings when they appear to be slightly different (slightly
> different is the problem, lots different is not, note
>
>   <a href="http://foo.bar.baz/">[Click here]
>
> ).  We had better be sure that everyone understands that
>
>   <a href="http://A-label1.A-label2.A-label3/">
>      http://U-label1.U-label2.U-label3/
>
> should not trigger nasty warnings if the domain names are
> label-for-label equivalent.
>
>      john
>
> _______________________________________________
> Idna-update mailing list
> Idna-update at alvestrand.no
> http://www.alvestrand.no/mailman/listinfo/idna-update