Re: [apps-discuss] Potential issues in RFC 3986

[Julian Reschke <[e-mail]>]

On 2015-01-02 16:58, Sam Ruby wrote:
> ...
>>> ...
>>>> In a brief sampling, I couldn't see any divergence which is likely
>>>> to be
>>>> resolvable by changing the URI spec.
>>>
>>> I encourage you to spend more time with that data.  An example of a
>>> concrete problem is handing of hosts in a UTS-46 compliant manner.
>>> ...
>>
>> Which test, specifically?
>
> Most of the tests in the range of 242..263 deal with IDNA issues in some
> manner or another.  A particularly fun one is test 261:
>
> https://url.spec.whatwg.org/interop/test-results/e99bce2c50
>
> <aside>ordinal test numbers may change over time.  The hash, however,
> will not</aside>.
>
> I encourage you to scan the text of RFC 3986 for the term "IDNA".  In
> the decade between when RFC 3986 was published and today, things have
> progressed a bit here.
> ...

I'm fully aware that RFC 3986 is likely incorrect wrt IDNA advice.

However, the test that you cite does not use a valid URI, so I don't 
think it can be used as example that something in RFC 3986 is incorrect.

Best regards, Julian