URIs/IRIs

[Eric Brunner-Williams]

Please see rfc1035 at line 180. The thing that i(c==r)ks you arises 
elsewhere, e.g., see also line 182.

Shawn Steele (???) wrote:
> Ick, I would very much hope that A-labels only would infect the 7 bit DNS system and that % escaping or Unicode would suffice for URIs/IRIs.  I see a restriction to only legal IDN names in the Unicode space, but there's no need for 8 bit aware systems, or those with other existing escaping mechinisms, to get the A-label hack.
>
> - Shawn
>
> ________________________________________
> From: Erik van der Poel [erikv at google.com]
> Sent: Thursday, February 26, 2009 7:32 AM
> To: Vint Cerf
> Cc: patrik at frobbit.se; saleh at nic.ir; mark at macchiato.com; idna-update at alvestrand.no; Shawn Steele (???)
> Subject: Re: Bundling vs Mapping
>
> Hi Vint,
>
> In theory, URL is no longer the term to use, and we should be talking
> about URIs (ASCII and %-escaped text) and IRIs (non-ASCII). In
> practice, one of the most common contexts for URLs/URIs/IRIs is HTML,
> and current implementations accept both URIs and IRIs that contain
> non-ASCII text.
>
> In theory, we should be able to introduce characters like Eszett into
> IDNA, and use them in A-labels in URIs. In practice, a commonly used
> browser version (MSIE7) will not access such URIs, so we'd have to
> wait until many users stop using MSIE7 before registrants and HTML
> authors could start using those URIs.
>
> In theory, HTML implementations should not have allowed non-ASCII
> domain names since IDNA2003 clearly stated that such domain names may
> not appear in "IDNA-unaware domain name slots". In practice, the HTML
> implementers have ignored that part of IDNA2003 and mapped non-ASCII
> domain names, converting them to Punycode. So the Eszett causes a
> problem here, because the implementation must decide whether to map to
> "ss" or not to map at all, or to try both in DNS.
>
> I don't know whether you'd consider this inimical, but I am certainly concerned.
>
> Erik
>
> On Thu, Feb 26, 2009 at 12:58 AM, Vint Cerf <vint at google.com> wrote:
>   
>> Is there any reason the believe that the present idna2008 documents contain anything inimical to URL use of domain names?
>>
>> ----- Original Message -----
>> From: idna-update-bounces at alvestrand.no <idna-update-bounces at alvestrand.no>
>> To: Alireza Saleh <saleh at nic.ir>
>> Cc: Mark Davis <mark at macchiato.com>; idna-update at alvestrand.no <idna-update at alvestrand.no>; Shawn Steele (???) <Shawn.Steele at microsoft.com>
>> Sent: Wed Feb 25 23:29:19 2009
>> Subject: Re: Bundling vs Mapping
>>
>> On 26 feb 2009, at 08.06, Alireza Saleh wrote:
>>
>>     
>>> I think the drafts should talk about domain-names at the DNS point
>>> of view to make sure the current DNS infrastructure remains reliable
>>> but taking URL confusions in this area may not be an appopriate
>>> approach
>>>       
>> I of course agree with you on this.
>>
>> But, I think we need both. I think we need documents that give
>> guidelines on how to handle URLs as well, but my point is that it is a
>> different cup of tea.
>>
>> I can envision:
>>
>> 1. Display of a http URI with username and password in a right to left
>> context
>> 2. Display of a http URI without username and password in a left to
>> right context with one of the labels being right to left
>>
>> Etc...
>>
>> Very different things than talking about (just) domain names in a
>> generic sense.
>>
>>    Patrik
>>
>>     
>>> Alireza
>>>
>>>
>>> On Feb 26, 2009, at 1:56 AM, Patrik Fältström <patrik at frobbit.se>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>       
>>>> On 25 feb 2009, at 19.12, Mark Davis wrote:
>>>>
>>>>         
>>>>>> 4. Why has not work continued on the pre-i-d that Mark worked on,
>>>>>> should
>>>>>> that work continue?
>>>>>>             
>>>>> The indications that we have gotten all along is that that the
>>>>> authors of
>>>>> IDNA2008 were not interested in that.
>>>>>           
>>>> As I feel I am one of the authors of one of the documents of
>>>> IDNA2008, I must ask yourself where you found such indications from
>>>> me. I have, I thought, quite clearly several times asked you for a
>>>> continuation of your draft, and an I-D. What I have said is that I
>>>> have wanted the draft not to concentrate so much on HTTP, but
>>>> instead choose whether it is about HTTP and URIs, or about domain
>>>> names (so that it can be expanded again for the specific
>>>> applications that use domain names).
>>>>
>>>>  Patrik
>>>>
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> Idna-update mailing list
>>>> Idna-update at alvestrand.no
>>>> http://www.alvestrand.no/mailman/listinfo/idna-update
>>>>         
>> _______________________________________________
>> Idna-update mailing list
>> Idna-update at alvestrand.no
>> http://www.alvestrand.no/mailman/listinfo/idna-update
>> _______________________________________________
>> Idna-update mailing list
>> Idna-update at alvestrand.no
>> http://www.alvestrand.no/mailman/listinfo/idna-update
>>
>>     
> _______________________________________________
> Idna-update mailing list
> Idna-update at alvestrand.no
> http://www.alvestrand.no/mailman/listinfo/idna-update
>
>
>