URIs/IRIs

[Erik van der Poel]

On Thu, Feb 26, 2009 at 9:30 AM, Eric Brunner-Williams
<ebw at abenaki.wabanaki.net> wrote:
> Please see rfc1035 at line 180. The thing that i(c==r)ks you arises
> elsewhere, e.g., see also line 182.

In my copy of rfc1035.txt, line 180 is the empty line immediately
after "2.2. Common configurations". Am I looking at the wrong place?

> 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.

Most of the IDNs in URIs/IRIs in HTML on the Web are in Punycode. This
is because (surprise!) MSIE6 does not support IDNA.

Erik

>> 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
>>
>>
>>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Idna-update mailing list
> Idna-update at alvestrand.no
> http://www.alvestrand.no/mailman/listinfo/idna-update
>