[Top][All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: treatment of U+002E that is produced by NFKC
From: |
Erik van der Poel |
Subject: |
Re: treatment of U+002E that is produced by NFKC |
Date: |
Sun, 13 Jan 2008 12:53:55 -0800 |
> Interesting. As far as I can tell from RFC 3490, I think the libidn
> behaviour is what follows from the specification. The specification
> doesn't say anything about treating U+2024 as a label separator that I
> could find. Do you agree with this?
Yes, I agree.
> If so, I think the first step is
> to update the RFC, and when that is done we can adapt the new behaviour
> in libidn.
Sure, that is one way to deal with this. Libidn users may not be
clamoring for a resolution. Other implementations may be in more of a
rush to resolve the conflict. (I work for Google.)
> If libidn implements RFC 3490 incorrectly, we should definitely fix
> that. Right now I don't understand what part of RFC 3490 we implement
> incorrectly. So please explain further how the RFC 3490 language and
> libidn differ.
>
> I think one could argue more convincingly that MSIE/Firefox implements
> RFC 3490 incorrectly here. U+2024 isn't a label separator according to
> RFC 3490, but they treat it as if it were.
Yes, one could certainly argue that MSIE and Firefox implement RFC
3490 incorrectly, particularly if you read section 4 steps 4) and 5)
carefully. However, I also believe that MSIE and Firefox chose a
reasonable behavior and that it seems somewhat unlikely that they will
change their behavior, given that the IDNA200X discussions already
appear to be moving in their direction.
Erik
- treatment of U+002E that is produced by NFKC, Erik van der Poel, 2008/01/12
- Re: treatment of U+002E that is produced by NFKC, Simon Josefsson, 2008/01/13
- Re: treatment of U+002E that is produced by NFKC, Erik van der Poel, 2008/01/13
- Re: treatment of U+002E that is produced by NFKC, Simon Josefsson, 2008/01/13
- Re: treatment of U+002E that is produced by NFKC,
Erik van der Poel <=
- AW: treatment of U+002E that is produced by NFKC, Alexander Gnauck, 2008/01/13
- Re: AW: treatment of U+002E that is produced by NFKC, Simon Josefsson, 2008/01/14
- Re: AW: treatment of U+002E that is produced by NFKC, Erik van der Poel, 2008/01/14
- Re: AW: treatment of U+002E that is produced by NFKC, Simon Josefsson, 2008/01/14
- Re: AW: treatment of U+002E that is produced by NFKC, Erik van der Poel, 2008/01/14
- Re: AW: treatment of U+002E that is produced by NFKC, Simon Josefsson, 2008/01/14
- Re: AW: treatment of U+002E that is produced by NFKC, Simon Josefsson, 2008/01/15
- Re: AW: treatment of U+002E that is produced by NFKC, Erik van der Poel, 2008/01/15
- Re: AW: treatment of U+002E that is produced by NFKC, Simon Josefsson, 2008/01/15
- Re: AW: treatment of U+002E that is produced by NFKC, Erik van der Poel, 2008/01/15