Re: [I18nrp] Conservatism principle doesn't go far enough

Anne van Kesteren <annevk@annevk.nl> Mon, 04 February 2019 09:06 UTC

Return-Path: <annevk@annevk.nl>
X-Original-To: i18nrp@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: i18nrp@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0668E130E0A for <i18nrp@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 4 Feb 2019 01:06:21 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.001
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.001 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=annevk.nl
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id G-t-uIvAqMIx for <i18nrp@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 4 Feb 2019 01:06:18 -0800 (PST)
Received: from otter.birch.relay.mailchannels.net (otter.birch.relay.mailchannels.net [23.83.209.139]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 4680D124BF6 for <i18nrp@ietf.org>; Mon, 4 Feb 2019 01:06:18 -0800 (PST)
X-Sender-Id: dreamhost|x-authsender|annevk@annevk.nl
Received: from relay.mailchannels.net (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by relay.mailchannels.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1680D28420F for <i18nrp@ietf.org>; Mon, 4 Feb 2019 09:06:17 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from pdx1-sub0-mail-a9.g.dreamhost.com (unknown [100.96.29.126]) (Authenticated sender: dreamhost) by relay.mailchannels.net (Postfix) with ESMTPA id C3BB4282F75 for <i18nrp@ietf.org>; Mon, 4 Feb 2019 09:06:16 +0000 (UTC)
X-Sender-Id: dreamhost|x-authsender|annevk@annevk.nl
Received: from pdx1-sub0-mail-a9.g.dreamhost.com (pop.dreamhost.com [64.90.62.162]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384) by 0.0.0.0:2500 (trex/5.16.2); Mon, 04 Feb 2019 09:06:17 +0000
X-MC-Relay: Neutral
X-MailChannels-SenderId: dreamhost|x-authsender|annevk@annevk.nl
X-MailChannels-Auth-Id: dreamhost
X-Supply-Scare: 76dc83fd576200f4_1549271176919_1888973066
X-MC-Loop-Signature: 1549271176919:1317707046
X-MC-Ingress-Time: 1549271176918
Received: from pdx1-sub0-mail-a9.g.dreamhost.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pdx1-sub0-mail-a9.g.dreamhost.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 41C857F716 for <i18nrp@ietf.org>; Mon, 4 Feb 2019 01:06:16 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha1; c=relaxed; d=annevk.nl; h=mime-version :references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to:cc :content-type; s=annevk.nl; bh=znbQ9rOekeWuIGf0G8FSX8IgR4s=; b=r Hwdfpzy2OW6JYiZOYNgfFyGQScsFmbOMprRiEbbvlSAsOshHPeYekn1kbK4TZqJZ rcVIi94T6uvpDVj0/ncMr7sxGa24kI7rMIk/hQyS2xN0+htUmB662k1LAW5NNljh PmZL2M88euSDA8k/ajtclAzL+F5MEyE1a/I8ChPVKU=
Received: from mail-ed1-f41.google.com (mail-ed1-f41.google.com [209.85.208.41]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) (Authenticated sender: annevk@annevk.nl) by pdx1-sub0-mail-a9.g.dreamhost.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id CCE0E7F715 for <i18nrp@ietf.org>; Mon, 4 Feb 2019 01:06:15 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-ed1-f41.google.com with SMTP id y20so10532175edw.9 for <i18nrp@ietf.org>; Mon, 04 Feb 2019 01:06:15 -0800 (PST)
X-Gm-Message-State: AJcUukcXfgwlm18hBFP5BsaOUTJErjd2Ku4vbSc43PecOsDirQOilHGy IUGAi3ucli38+0NJmyqCUPufE6iaNQzclSWStQ==
X-Google-Smtp-Source: ALg8bN5vwPeNNOPkQSTB4v2YoT6AGYw+U8V+QC/wOyrdUONppA6z9dRcBN3YlWyQQ19ONaTtNUlEaRB2y7xGhkiA2/E=
X-Received: by 2002:a17:906:f87:: with SMTP id q7mr26859443ejj.158.1549271173991; Mon, 04 Feb 2019 01:06:13 -0800 (PST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <20190201021802.A5160200D93BBA@ary.qy> <4C0F3C8D65FB57C697E72F8D@PSB> <016001d4bb75$15350130$3f9f0390$@acm.org>
In-Reply-To: <016001d4bb75$15350130$3f9f0390$@acm.org>
X-DH-BACKEND: pdx1-sub0-mail-a9
From: Anne van Kesteren <annevk@annevk.nl>
Date: Mon, 04 Feb 2019 10:06:02 +0100
X-Gmail-Original-Message-ID: <CADnb78hxJn+Ly2Co_V-mfYDMOXQA0X3d_x8uyaOq6+CoaNaRFQ@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <CADnb78hxJn+Ly2Co_V-mfYDMOXQA0X3d_x8uyaOq6+CoaNaRFQ@mail.gmail.com>
To: Larry Masinter <LMM@acm.org>
Cc: John C Klensin <john-ietf@jck.com>, John Levine <johnl@taugh.com>, i18nrp@ietf.org, "Emily Stark (Dunn)" <estark@google.com>, Eric Lawrence <bayden@gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
X-VR-OUT-STATUS: OK
X-VR-OUT-SCORE: -100
X-VR-OUT-SPAMCAUSE: gggruggvucftvghtrhhoucdtuddrgedtledrkeefgdduvdekucetufdoteggodetrfdotffvucfrrhhofhhilhgvmecuggftfghnshhusghstghrihgsvgdpffftgfetoffjqffuvfenuceurghilhhouhhtmecufedttdenucesvcftvggtihhpihgvnhhtshculddquddttddmnecujfgurhepgghfjgfhfffkuffvtgesthdtredttddtjeenucfhrhhomheptehnnhgvuchvrghnucfmvghsthgvrhgvnhcuoegrnhhnvghvkhesrghnnhgvvhhkrdhnlheqnecuffhomhgrihhnpehunhhitghouggvrdhorhhgpdhgohhoghhlvghsohhurhgtvgdrtghomhenucfkphepvddtledrkeehrddvtdekrdegudenucfrrghrrghmpehmohguvgepshhmthhppdhhvghlohepmhgrihhlqdgvugduqdhfgedurdhgohhoghhlvgdrtghomhdpihhnvghtpedvtdelrdekhedrvddtkedrgedupdhrvghtuhhrnhdqphgrthhhpeetnhhnvgcuvhgrnhcumfgvshhtvghrvghnuceorghnnhgvvhhksegrnhhnvghvkhdrnhhlqedpmhgrihhlfhhrohhmpegrnhhnvghvkhesrghnnhgvvhhkrdhnlhdpnhhrtghpthhtohepihdukehnrhhpsehivghtfhdrohhrghenucevlhhushhtvghrufhiiigvpedt
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/i18nrp/3rbdLYLliy5zCjfBuRCzVU6UzWo>
Subject: Re: [I18nrp] Conservatism principle doesn't go far enough
X-BeenThere: i18nrp@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: Internationalization Review Procedures <i18nrp.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/i18nrp>, <mailto:i18nrp-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/i18nrp/>
List-Post: <mailto:i18nrp@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:i18nrp-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/i18nrp>, <mailto:i18nrp-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 04 Feb 2019 09:11:25 -0000

Hey Larry,

Glad to see you're still involved. I believe Emily and Eric (when
still at Google) have been largely responsible for this document. I
took the liberty of copying them. I suspect the document here is not
talking about Unicode normalization, but rather how parsing a URL will
normalize various aspects of it. (Having said that, ToASCII as defined
at https://www.unicode.org/reports/tr46/#ToASCII and used by the URL
Standard will do some Unicode normalization for the domain name. I
suspect that cannot be changed at this point.)

Kind regards,

Anne

On Sun, Feb 3, 2019 at 5:01 AM Larry Masinter <LMM@acm.org> wrote:
> I was just pointing out an interesting document (the Chrome rules for
> displaying URLs ) that covers material in more detail than RFC 3987 and
> isn't currently part of the WHATWG "living standard" for URLs.
> As far as it goes, people choosing names don't know how the world's
> population with their raft of OS'es and browsers will behave. They might not
> be idiots, just not informed.
>
> One rule in the document calls for normalizing the Unicode as a first step.
> https://chromium.googlesource.com/chromium/src/+/master/docs/security/url_display_guidelines/url_display_guidelines.md#display-urls-in-canonical-form
>
> But I think this is counter-productive and wrong. If you're showing someone
> a URL which is not in normal form, normalization will lose this critical
> information. Better to just display the punicode for any unnormalized
> domains.
>
> I'd submit an issue but I can't figure out where.