What is the idea for new schemes that want to use IDNs in the authority field? Is it to update the URL standard to include them in the list? Or are they not supported? Should the registration template include some information about whether they're intended to have the host treated as an IDN?
Larry -- http://larry.masinter.net -----Original Message----- From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Anne van Kesteren Sent: Tuesday, April 08, 2014 10:26 AM To: Larry Masinter Cc: Phillips, Addison; Martin Dürst; Leif Halvard Silli; Dave Thaler ([email protected]); Robin Berjon ([email protected]); Mark Davis ☕; [email protected] Subject: Re: IDNA, IRIs, and ://..../ authority field On Mon, Apr 7, 2014 at 5:23 PM, Larry Masinter <[email protected]> wrote: > If 'hostname' is a non-ASCII string (IDN), should a processor trying to > convert the IRI to a URI use punicode or %xx-hex-encoding for the authority > segment? Per the URL standard, this depends on the scheme. > WHATWG > http://url.spec.whatwg.org/ (Anne, Leif) Just me. > has a fixed set of relative schemes: ftp, file, gopher (a mistake?), > http, https, ws, wss > Uses IDNA 2003 not 2008 > I'm not sure, but I think it re Did you omit something here? I talked with Mark a couple of weeks ago and will update the URL standard to refer to UTS #46 and use it's transitional mode for IDNA ToASCII and ToUnicode processing. I'm waiting for UTS #46 to be refreshed this summer, but I could be persuaded to reference the draft copy for a while. -- http://annevankesteren.nl/
