+ Erik van der Poel, Markus Scherer, Peter Edberg, Michel Suignard Yes, unfortunately the IETF folks didn't learn from the XML 1.1 debacle; the downside of making a new version incompatible.
At this point in time, I think the only realistic alternatives are either: 1. Stay with 2003 2. Use TR46 (http://unicode.org/reports/tr46/#Compatibility_Processing) Mark Davis | Int’l Arch | [email protected] | +1 650-450-9291 / +41 44-668-1282 On Thu, Aug 15, 2013 at 12:43 PM, Anne van Kesteren <[email protected]>wrote: > Hey hey, > > So one part that's missing in http://url.spec.whatwg.org/ is domain > names. As far as I can tell no browser has moved beyond IDNA 2003 > (Opera "regressed" when it adopted Chromium) other than updating their > Unicode implementation and nobody is interested in implementing IDNA > 2008 (whatever that means, it doesn't exactly define it all the way > from code points in an unparsed URL to host bytes). > > Given that, my plan is to put that in the specification. IDNA 2003, > its label separators, the Unicode normalization it uses (but without > restrictions to a particular Unicode version), ... > > Some registrars have moved to IDNA 2008, but this creates security > issues as pointed out in http://unicode.org/reports/tr46/ and people > are unlikely to register names that do not work. I suspect long term > the IETF will have to revisit this, but in the mean time it would be > good to have accurate documentation for how we want everything around > URLs to work. > > If there's anything I'm missing here, I'd love to hear about it. If > you want more background reading, I wrote this after doing some > research last year: http://annevankesteren.nl/2012/11/idna-hell > > Kind regards, > > > -- > http://annevankesteren.nl/ >
