Re: [webfinger] Webfinger and URI vs IRI

Barry Leiba <barryleiba@computer.org> Tue, 23 July 2013 09:26 UTC

Return-Path: <barryleiba@gmail.com>
X-Original-To: webfinger@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: webfinger@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0D79511E80DC for <webfinger@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 23 Jul 2013 02:26:53 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -101.827
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-101.827 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.150, BAYES_00=-2.599, FM_FORGED_GMAIL=0.622, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, MIME_8BIT_HEADER=0.3, NO_RELAYS=-0.001, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 41heDo8blp0d for <webfinger@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 23 Jul 2013 02:26:52 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-qc0-x22a.google.com (mail-qc0-x22a.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:400d:c01::22a]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 160FD11E8156 for <webfinger@ietf.org>; Tue, 23 Jul 2013 02:26:51 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-qc0-f170.google.com with SMTP id s1so4194291qcw.29 for <webfinger@ietf.org>; Tue, 23 Jul 2013 02:26:50 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:sender:in-reply-to:references:date :x-google-sender-auth:message-id:subject:from:to:cc:content-type; bh=+ua4LW/Q9qoTpX/usDrC2F+qEzA2nlGMAPuIbno2lts=; b=MCDy57t+tONz0bw3vTz2uLyBL5pH8pVYsO9RyDGMm7yq0JKC630ooeSses8IMjofwk zcV1AcAzYrt2Y/U5wRCcxZq6TqyDR1w+JBiRw1MopNVKnDgO95N9p4j6r4jVqtgh9Id6 WqLEZKyy+0wK/1WElTDW0RK6sk9mCmwv5VHS2wwJwHdOaGxeBEaZfu1aWZsU42Oyt4a8 hZsqqL1liJdUcqciImSByTPrGP7yf8BzClVbEob2PY/2L4pYifGn+C65n9XGoTGsAX2A l/IHk4fiUBxuJDXLMu1s82vk4Lgc7TuutlNJSN0atJUgiJXHME+ZVvQXbqGyOdZwPW2U 0hRg==
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by 10.224.63.7 with SMTP id z7mr38959326qah.51.1374571610474; Tue, 23 Jul 2013 02:26:50 -0700 (PDT)
Sender: barryleiba@gmail.com
Received: by 10.224.59.211 with HTTP; Tue, 23 Jul 2013 02:26:50 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <51EE45C5.4080701@it.aoyama.ac.jp>
References: <028301ce869f$596c12a0$0c4437e0$@packetizer.com> <CAC4RtVCvfzy8m2Tx8fsjoCgstPkf-B5PAkAXumDLqKqhh6ETnA@mail.gmail.com> <042f01ce8722$4d98a410$e8c9ec30$@packetizer.com> <51EE45C5.4080701@it.aoyama.ac.jp>
Date: Tue, 23 Jul 2013 05:26:50 -0400
X-Google-Sender-Auth: mQf9g1qb0RGs4rqi3iolJOU3x7Q
Message-ID: <CALaySJLmPDNmML5ktFt1b-88605F6fmPwR6yQitic8oYXM9Z9A@mail.gmail.com>
From: Barry Leiba <barryleiba@computer.org>
To: =?ISO-8859-1?Q?Martin_J=2E_D=FCrst?= <duerst@it.aoyama.ac.jp>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=047d7bdc77aa8f8f7204e22a64b5
Cc: "Paul E. Jones" <paulej@packetizer.com>, "webfinger@ietf.org" <webfinger@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [webfinger] Webfinger and URI vs IRI
X-BeenThere: webfinger@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: Discussion of the Webfinger protocol proposal in the Applications Area <webfinger.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/webfinger>, <mailto:webfinger-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/webfinger>
List-Post: <mailto:webfinger@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:webfinger-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/webfinger>, <mailto:webfinger-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 23 Jul 2013 09:26:53 -0000

> Please stop this "only for presentation" myth that essentially means that
everything is legible as long as it's English.

It's not a "myth", Martin.  It's a question of who needs to read it.
 Humans don't have to read what's in the JSON.  The application that shows
a URI to a user will have to render it in a way the user can read it.
 That's where we get the presentation layer.

Barry

On Tuesday, July 23, 2013, "Martin J. Dürst" wrote:

> Hello everybody,
>
> On 2013/07/23 6:27, Paul E. Jones wrote:
>
>> Barry,
>>
>
>  The reason I raise this is that RFC 5988 refers to the target IRI (the
>> “href” in WebFinger link relation) and context IRI (the “subject” and
>> “aliases” in WebFinger).  Only ASCII is used in some protocols, so the
>> IRIs must be formatted as URIs.
>>
>
>  However, JRD is JSON and, therefore, Unicode.  Thus, we could easily
>> accommodate links like this:
>>
>
>     {
>>
>>      "rel" : "test2",
>>
>>      "href" : "http://example.org/私の 文書.txt"
>>
>> }
>>
>
>  As opposed this form:
>>
>
>     {
>>
>>      "rel" : "test2",
>>
>>      "href" :
>> "http://example.org/%E7%A7%81%**E3%81%AE%20%E6%96%87%E6%9B%B8.**txt<http://example.org/%E7%A7%81%E3%81%AE%20%E6%96%87%E6%9B%B8.txt>
>> "
>>
>> }
>>
>
>  I have no strong preference, but the text did have IRI mentioned in one
>> place in the JRD spec section, but it was not consistent through the
>> document.  Everywhere else, we specified URI.
>>
>
>  So, if IRIs are truly only for presentation,
>>
>
> That's clearly not the case. IRIs are used in HTML and other places.
>
>  then the latter example above
>> should be what WF servers return.  The query target is always a
>> percent-encoded URI, so it’s a non-issue.
>>
>
> For most of you, the differences between the above two examples are mostly
> irrelevant, and the second one may even look more familiar. But for those
> who can read the first one (Japanese, although the space is highly
> suspicious, because Japanese doesn't use spaces), the first one is very
> clear, whereas the second one is complete gibberish.
>
> As a slightly related example, one could write
>      "rel" : "test2"
> as
>      "rel" : "%74%65%73%74%32"
> and it would provide about the same level of useless obscuration.
>
> Please stop this "only for presentation" myth that essentially means that
> everything is legible as long as it's English.
>
> Regards,   Martin.
>