Hi, Here's an edit, just to start:
"An "internationalized domain name", i.e., a DNS domain name that includes at least one label containing appropriately encoded Unicode code points outside the traditional US-ASCII range and conforming to the processing and validity checks specified for "IDNA2008" in [IDNA-DEFS]" I think this reference should be to UTS-46, since it allows more names. (U+2615 ( ☕ ) HOT BEVERAGE is valid in UTS-46 but not IDNA2008). Later on, the draft says "there are in practice at least two primary approaches to internationalized domain names", but it sure seems like the Internet has settled on UTS-46, a superset of IDNA2008. I think the draft should say that. I can offer specific text here, but this will require a big rewrite of the paragraph, and I think the editors will have their own ideas. So far we've found Chrome and Postfix, just to name a few examples, using UTS-46. I think the draft is overstating the influence of IDNA2008. After all, it's 14-15 years old, and things have changed. But, as Orie notes, there are still bugs. thanks, Rob On Fri, Jan 27, 2023 at 6:24 PM Orie Steele <orie@transmute.industries> wrote: > Possibly relevant, not sure if helpful: > > - https://github.com/whatwg/url/issues/341 > - https://github.com/whatwg/url/issues/733 > > > > On Fri, Jan 27, 2023, 7:26 PM Rob Sayre <say...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> On Fri, Jan 27, 2023 at 5:16 PM Peter Saint-Andre <stpe...@stpeter.im> >> wrote: >> >>> > That is what works. >>> >>> Well, IDNA2008 works for many applications and UTS-46 works for many >>> other applications. I'm not as certain as you are that one of these >>> technologies works and the other does not. Can you produce evidence >>> that, by implication, IDNA2008 does not work? What problems does it not >>> solve? >>> >> >> That's the dispute, right? UTS-46 allows more names than IDNA2008, so it >> will be more interoperable, and it is popular. >> >> If you look at this table, that seems correct: >> >> https://www.unicode.org/reports/tr46/#Table_IDNA_Comparisons >> >> I am not a fan of works of fiction in standards, and I think UTS-46 is >> closer to the truth here. >> >> thanks, >> Rob >> _______________________________________________ >> Uta mailing list >> Uta@ietf.org >> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/uta >> >
_______________________________________________ Uta mailing list Uta@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/uta
