[Top][All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
treatment of U+002E that is produced by NFKC
From: |
Erik van der Poel |
Subject: |
treatment of U+002E that is produced by NFKC |
Date: |
Sat, 12 Jan 2008 10:25:51 -0800 |
GNU libidn handles the case below in the same way as Opera 9 and ICU,
but MSIE 7 and Firefox 2 handle it differently.
I tried the demo page at http://josefsson.org/idn.php/
By the way, the main libidn Web page tries to link to the Bug Report
section, but fails to jump to the right anchor:
http://www.gnu.org/software/libidn/#bugs (see the link "how to report
bugs" at this location)
Speaking of U+2024 and where in the protocol stack to handle things, I
just discovered that MSIE 7 and Firefox 2 both perform NFKC on this
character, to yield U+002E (.). After that, they divide the host name
into labels *again*, so the new U+002E becomes a new label separator.
If we ever get around to writing a document about IDNA in HTML, we may
want to make a note of this. I.e. the steps are:
(1) Divide the domain name into labels by looking for IDNA2003 dots.
(2) Perform Nameprep2003 on each non-ASCII label.
(3) Divide each label into multiple labels, by looking for regular dots.
(4) Perform Punycode2003 on each non-ASCII label.
Interestingly, Opera 9 appears to perform a slightly different set of
steps (see step 2):
(1) Divide the domain name into labels by looking for IDNA2003 dots.
(2) Perform Nameprep2003 on each non-ASCII label, and, if result is
non-ASCII, perform Punycode2003.
(3) Divide each label into multiple labels, by looking for regular dots.
Opera 9 is somewhat more conformant to RFC 3490, but it re-divides the
labels instead of inserting 0x2E (.) into the DNS packet. (One might
argue that RFC 3490 did not really take this into account.)
I haven't tried it in Safari 3 or MSIE 6 with Verisign plug-in. The
HTML I used for testing was:
<a href="http://google․com">one</a><br>
<a href="http://十․com">two</a>
- treatment of U+002E that is produced by NFKC,
Erik van der Poel <=
- Re: treatment of U+002E that is produced by NFKC, Simon Josefsson, 2008/01/13
- Re: treatment of U+002E that is produced by NFKC, Erik van der Poel, 2008/01/13
- Re: treatment of U+002E that is produced by NFKC, Simon Josefsson, 2008/01/13
- Re: treatment of U+002E that is produced by NFKC, Erik van der Poel, 2008/01/13
- AW: treatment of U+002E that is produced by NFKC, Alexander Gnauck, 2008/01/13
- Re: AW: treatment of U+002E that is produced by NFKC, Simon Josefsson, 2008/01/14
- Re: AW: treatment of U+002E that is produced by NFKC, Erik van der Poel, 2008/01/14
- Re: AW: treatment of U+002E that is produced by NFKC, Simon Josefsson, 2008/01/14
- Re: AW: treatment of U+002E that is produced by NFKC, Erik van der Poel, 2008/01/14
- Re: AW: treatment of U+002E that is produced by NFKC, Simon Josefsson, 2008/01/14