[Uta] Browser behavior in draft-ietf-uta-rfc6125bis

2023-01-26 Thread Rob Sayre
Hi, I just filed an issue* to track treatment of browser behavior and WHATWG specs in https://www.ietf.org/archive/id/draft-ietf-uta-rfc6125bis-10.html It's probably easier to track that way, whatever the resolution might be. thanks, Rob * https://github.com/richsalz/draft-ietf-uta-rfc6125bis/i

Re: [Uta] Browser behavior in draft-ietf-uta-rfc6125bis

2023-01-26 Thread Corey Bonnell
Is there actually uniform “browser behavior” today across major browsers regarding alignment with WHATWG guidance for IDNA2008? Last I checked (a few months ago), Firefox and Safari implement non-transitional IDNA2008, whereas Chrome is still using UTS-46 transitional processing. Thanks, Co

Re: [Uta] Browser behavior in draft-ietf-uta-rfc6125bis

2023-01-26 Thread Rob Sayre
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. thanks, Rob On Thu, Jan 26, 2023 at 12:52 PM Corey Bonnell wrote: > Is there actually uniform “browser behavior” today across major browsers > regarding

Re: [Uta] Browser behavior in draft-ietf-uta-rfc6125bis

2023-01-26 Thread Peter Saint-Andre
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 dif

Re: [Uta] Browser behavior in draft-ietf-uta-rfc6125bis

2023-01-26 Thread Rob Sayre
On Thu, Jan 26, 2023 at 1:39 PM Peter Saint-Andre 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 claim

Re: [Uta] Browser behavior in draft-ietf-uta-rfc6125bis

2023-01-26 Thread Corey Bonnell
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 [

Re: [Uta] Browser behavior in draft-ietf-uta-rfc6125bis

2023-01-26 Thread Rob Sayre
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