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

Emily Stark <estark@google.com> Mon, 04 February 2019 23:58 UTC

Return-Path: <estark@google.com>
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 81600129A87 for <i18nrp@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 4 Feb 2019 15:58:30 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -17.642
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-17.642 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIMWL_WL_MED=-0.142, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, ENV_AND_HDR_SPF_MATCH=-0.5, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, USER_IN_DEF_DKIM_WL=-7.5, USER_IN_DEF_SPF_WL=-7.5] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=google.com
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 R6SI3dA2bH3M for <i18nrp@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 4 Feb 2019 15:58:28 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-yw1-xc36.google.com (mail-yw1-xc36.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::c36]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id F1C041294FA for <i18nrp@ietf.org>; Mon, 4 Feb 2019 15:58:27 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-yw1-xc36.google.com with SMTP id u200so1017746ywu.10 for <i18nrp@ietf.org>; Mon, 04 Feb 2019 15:58:27 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=google.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=ATho9mK2dEu5qX8F61eIPkdxfdVL3GZih3PUZ825QEI=; b=p4jltRVRhnfm6Ffvfz/c/cduY1viRhavaTKvoYAIpdBIxbVtlIM/wgB2Q4fgKfhs09 c4VuoTSBSLAVmc8qD1GBW4gvXmDR6BHpf9PQGm5lCEsptihF1dQzS2UWqKINwS0Q8Lr/ p7cOhx1M9HSccSoEiAYwMjyhBpQVzoK9UkYesOUXunI7U7g9PuYa6Sli8sYTcXPifLxs txYdf2Locm7A++oGRun72U148u6/oKVm4A9wu+a1wigUe6VoiiIPx4vHVyDFdr+B9h0b PdbpbQNLW9sRGfSq+lC/wE7iGt+hWB8Za1PbMCLquYYu3mFH4/F8yxEd2wMQOtjJlofK oGvw==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=ATho9mK2dEu5qX8F61eIPkdxfdVL3GZih3PUZ825QEI=; b=AjqcGt94KJk+rKD1f8UBuu8YjS97MpmbcwpkvkhCC4tjBaR5JMY7livqk1G79dzYjW qSvkwlL7ZtP3I3/whM718d3qKWMh4X4i34ZpjPosYQ+DiyRKY/sITRaPc6AXR0wLjnTK EGA1QnxbA3FWnnrhaTXC9D3CEoZU8Z2qCF0dktzmAEA8mxP5JkS2wxJyXvn3j4xWmLgX HchJuw9mb2RKkvRGi1CCfFw8bCau1CpvpGdD3nXGxWdsdECQ6eRsuNJS8rU8RDN5fb5M 5YnBzf5Y60BKSjblvl2iPxje1FXHpi+AqCw/QGvq1MhF6YiaUc6ZxbE0URCLRy78gj7W cLSA==
X-Gm-Message-State: AHQUAuarHuiyoqqEJTwwYu2Tc++BgEPvg/Vb6L4tzGz3HFghI2nsyCjC md+OrmhgvlnOysT23LGHA0J9NEtYLeBxziVdyyNwOA==
X-Google-Smtp-Source: AHgI3IZn9trVL21rjMZ4VyA4n/nKIOxZ6BQd1DxITeN5gOI9Wfb+tEgGCFYLWx420WGYt2HCx/lNSyhfX35UpnrigA8=
X-Received: by 2002:a0d:ce82:: with SMTP id q124mr1661239ywd.482.1549324706982; Mon, 04 Feb 2019 15:58:26 -0800 (PST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <20190201021802.A5160200D93BBA@ary.qy> <4C0F3C8D65FB57C697E72F8D@PSB> <016001d4bb75$15350130$3f9f0390$@acm.org> <CADnb78hxJn+Ly2Co_V-mfYDMOXQA0X3d_x8uyaOq6+CoaNaRFQ@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CADnb78hxJn+Ly2Co_V-mfYDMOXQA0X3d_x8uyaOq6+CoaNaRFQ@mail.gmail.com>
From: Emily Stark <estark@google.com>
Date: Mon, 4 Feb 2019 15:58:16 -0800
Message-ID: <CAPP_2Sb0wRzhwOOQZK9hyAvUiVRMZYbscs0U=XJS0BFdAu8=sA@mail.gmail.com>
To: Anne van Kesteren <annevk@annevk.nl>
Cc: Larry Masinter <LMM@acm.org>, John C Klensin <john-ietf@jck.com>, John Levine <johnl@taugh.com>, i18nrp@ietf.org, Eric Lawrence <bayden@gmail.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="000000000000cdbf7405811a44ab"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/i18nrp/Y-3keOSZn3uuRESx06Uzt6rRXuI>
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 23:58:30 -0000

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 <annevk@annevk.nl> 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 <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.
>