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

[Emily Stark <[e-mail]>]

Hi,

I might be missing some context here (thread might be cut off?) -- is there
a suggested update to the URL display guidelines? Displaying punycode for
unnormalized domains sounds user-unfriendly to me but I feel like I'm not
understanding the suggestion.

Thanks,
Emily

On Mon, Feb 4, 2019 at 1:06 AM Anne van Kesteren <[e-mail]> wrote:

> 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 <[e-mail]> 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.
>