Hi, I'll firstly treat this message as a signal of rough consensus, since I totally agree with what you phrased as "operational reality". But, I must note that the WHATWG document you linked* has a green callout that says: "This document and the web platform at large use Unicode IDNA Compatibility Processing and not IDNA2008. For instance, ☕.example becomes xn--53h.example and not failure. [UTS46] [RFC5890]"
thanks, Rob * https://url.spec.whatwg.org/#idna On Thu, Jan 26, 2023 at 2:20 PM Corey Bonnell <corey.bonn...@digicert.com> wrote: > Hi Rob, > > I regret that I used “TR-46” as shorthand for “TR-46 with transitional > processing enabled” instead of spelling that out explicitly. My > understanding is that all of Chrome, Safari, and Firefox implement TR-46, > but Chrome deviates from WHATWG guidance by enabling > Transitional_Processing [1]. TR-46 with Transitional_Processing disabled is > conformant with IDNA 2008 [2]. > > > > I agree with you that the draft text currently does not match this > operational reality. > > > > Thanks, > > Corey > > > > [1] https://url.spec.whatwg.org/#idna > > [2] http://www.unicode.org/reports/tr46/#Mapping > > > > *From:* Rob Sayre <say...@gmail.com> > *Sent:* Thursday, January 26, 2023 4:59 PM > *To:* Peter Saint-Andre <stpe...@stpeter.im> > *Cc:* Corey Bonnell <corey.bonn...@digicert.com>; uta@ietf.org > *Subject:* Re: [Uta] Browser behavior in draft-ietf-uta-rfc6125bis > > > > > > > > On Thu, Jan 26, 2023 at 1:39 PM Peter Saint-Andre <stpe...@stpeter.im> > wrote: > > On 1/26/23 2:28 PM, Rob Sayre wrote: > > Since you phrased your message as a question, I will answer. I don't > know. > > > > But what the draft says also does not align with your last check. > > How so? The draft currently makes no claims about what is implemented in > browsers, only notes that there can be differences between IDNA2008 and > UTS-46. > > > > I don't think that is quite right. The draft says > > > > "it is not expected that differences between the URI and URL > specifications would manifest themselves in certificate matching." > > > > but the WHATWG relies on UTS-46, not IDNA2008 [0]. If all browsers don't > follow this now, they soon will. Besides, these networking stacks are used > by tons of other applications. See [1]. > > > > The draft doesn't exactly say anything wrong, but you really have to do > what Chrome does to interoperate, and it hand waves about that. > > > > thanks, > > Rob > > > > [0] > https://github.com/whatwg/url/commit/50f0b090cd89c27327402b2c51b40b260caea70d > > [1] https://developer.android.com/codelabs/cronet#0 >
_______________________________________________ Uta mailing list Uta@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/uta
