On Sun, Aug 31, 2008 at 9:53 AM, tedd [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
At 2:21 PM -0400 8/30/08, Andrew Ballard wrote:
On Sat, Aug 30, 2008 at 11:38 AM, tedd [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I think making the URL RED would be a better warning than showing
PUNYCODE
-- but that's my opinion.
Cheers,
2008/8/30 Per Jessen [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
tedd wrote:
What some browser developers did was to NOT make the conversion from
PUNYCODE to the correct code-points but rather show the PUNYCODE
as-is, which was never the intent of the IDNS WG. This act defeated
the entire process of allowing
Robin Vickery wrote:
Firefox holds a whitelist of toplevel domains that are allowed to
display unicode (to see the list go to about:config and enter
IDN.whitelist into the filter box).
It does not allow .com domains to contain unicode for obvious phishing
reasons,
Very interesting, I had
At 2:21 PM -0400 8/30/08, Andrew Ballard wrote:
On Sat, Aug 30, 2008 at 11:38 AM, tedd [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I think making the URL RED would be a better warning than showing PUNYCODE
-- but that's my opinion.
Cheers,
tedd
Wait a minute - you're going to rail on for ever on another
At 3:22 PM -0400 8/30/08, Andrew Ballard wrote:
I was only contrasting tedd's current suggestion regarding how
browsers could handle his Unicode domain names where he suggested
color-coding the URL in the address bar against his earlier (well
thought out and presented) concerns about maintaining
At 8:37 PM +0100 8/30/08, Diogo Neves wrote:
Well, i really really believe that urls should keep clear as water...
http://forcaaerea.pt should exist, and not http://forçaaérea.pt...
even because in reality its http://xn--foraarea-u0aw.pt
Its a big mess...
How to keep it clear? don't mess up
tedd wrote:
In general terms
What you see above and what you claim to be
reality is actually PUNYCODE -- that is NOT
what the url actually is.
Hmm, the URL that is presented to the webserver is certainly in
punycode - what the user sees depends on the browser.
In my opinion they're both
Yeti wrote:
That Rx.com domain name is really great stuff, but how do you expect
the average user to type it in?
Completely separate question - I finally managed to get to Tedds site,
where I read this:
The ℞symbol is a truly global icon for Pharmaceuticals. What
Pharmaceutical company
At 1:30 PM +0200 8/30/08, Per Jessen wrote:
I finally managed to get to Tedds site
It's not that hard, try: http://rx-2.com
And you said:
Now, I haven't worked in pharmaceuticals, but I've worked in most
European countries. So it's probably just me, but I've _never_ come
across the Rx
At 1:20 PM +0200 8/30/08, Per Jessen wrote:
I think the problem is mostly on the domain owner side though - if you
register a domain for publishing something or other, but most of your
intended audience cannot enter it in an easy, straight-forward way,
you've only shot yourself in the foot,
At 1:23 PM +0200 8/30/08, Per Jessen wrote:
tedd wrote:
But as it is now, it's not so much IF the domain name is easy to
type in or not, but rather does the Rx.com show up in the URL once
you get there? And it does for most browsers other than IE.
You can get to the site very easily, try
tedd wrote:
At 1:30 PM +0200 8/30/08, Per Jessen wrote:
I finally managed to get to Tedds site
It's not that hard, try: http://rx-2.com
Yeah, but that _only_ takes me to rx-2.com, nothing else?
And you said:
Now, I haven't worked in pharmaceuticals, but I've worked in most
European
At 1:38 PM +0200 8/30/08, Per Jessen wrote:
Interesting - I copy-pasted the Rx symbol (from your webpage) into FF
and appended .com - and FF converted the URL symbol to xn--u2g.com.
I guess FF only works with a limited subset of the many possible special
characters.
What is happening there is
At 5:29 PM +0200 8/30/08, Per Jessen wrote:
Well, I guess - sort of. Just because something is Unicode does not
make it global, in my opinion.
In fact, I would argue that most of Unicode is _not_ global at all.
Think about the alphabets such as: Arabic, Armenian, Bengali, Bopomofo,
Cyrillic,
On Sat, Aug 30, 2008 at 11:38 AM, tedd [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
At 1:38 PM +0200 8/30/08, Per Jessen wrote:
Interesting - I copy-pasted the Rx symbol (from your webpage) into FF
and appended .com - and FF converted the URL symbol to xn--u2g.com.
I guess FF only works with a limited subset of
Your reply is a bit off-topic, and i agree u should care about all
those with red/green color blindness, but u should care with all those
how dislike spam too.
Then, unless u know a really good alternative to a CAPTCHA, i believe
its yet the better solution...
PS: u can answer and discuse this on
On Sat, Aug 30, 2008 at 2:34 PM, Diogo Neves [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Your reply is a bit off-topic, and i agree u should care about all
those with red/green color blindness, but u should care with all those
how dislike spam too.
Then, unless u know a really good alternative to a CAPTCHA, i
Well, i really really believe that urls should keep clear as water...
http://forcaaerea.pt should exist, and not http://forçaaérea.pt...
even because in reality its http://xn--foraarea-u0aw.pt
Its a big mess...
How to keep it clear? don't mess up with your domains if you care
about your clients
tedd wrote:
At 5:29 PM +0200 8/30/08, Per Jessen wrote:
Well, I guess - sort of. Just because something is Unicode does not
make it global, in my opinion.
In fact, I would argue that most of Unicode is _not_ global at all.
Think about the alphabets such as: Arabic, Armenian, Bengali,
Bopomofo,
tedd wrote:
What some browser developers did was to NOT make the conversion from
PUNYCODE to the correct code-points but rather show the PUNYCODE
as-is, which was never the intent of the IDNS WG. This act defeated
the entire process of allowing non-English people to have non-English
domain
On Sat, Aug 30, 2008 at 4:26 PM, Per Jessen [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
tedd wrote:
At 5:29 PM +0200 8/30/08, Per Jessen wrote:
Well, I guess - sort of. Just because something is Unicode does not
make it global, in my opinion.
In fact, I would argue that most of Unicode is _not_ global at all.
21 matches
Mail list logo
