Re: Use IDNA on all network connections

[Lars Ingebrigtsen <larsi@gnus.org>]

Paul Eggert <eggert@cs.ucla.edu> writes:

> Lars Ingebrigtsen wrote:
>> Should we do something about the Unicode homographic situation in
>> relation to URLs now that we have IDNA?
>
> Yes, that would be good. How about if we display a URL component in
> punycode if it doesn’t satisfy the Unicode Restriction Level 3 (Highly
> Restrictive)? The Unicode folks say this restriction level “will
> satisfy the vast majority of users”.
>
> http://www.unicode.org/reports/tr39/#Restriction_Level_Detection

-----

3 Highly Restrictive 

 * All characters in each identifier must be from a single script, or from the
 combinations: 

 * Latin + Han + Hiragana + Katakana; 
 * Latin + Han + Bopomofo; or 
 * Latin + Han + Hangul 

 * No characters in the identifier can be outside of the Identifier Profile 

 Note that this level will satisfy the vast majority of users. 

-----

That seems like a sensible restriction.  But when Emacs detects an URL,
should it punify the URL (for display purposes) (if it doesn't satisfy
"Highly Restrictive"), or should it just ... do something when the user
tries to act on the URL?

> Here's a summary of what some popular browsers do:
>
> http://www.chromium.org/developers/design-documents/idn-in-google-chrome

For eww, I think Firefox' solution sounds nice: Display the punycode
version if the domain name doesn't satisfy "Highly Restrictive"...

-- 
(domestic pets only, the antidote for overdose, milk.)
   bloggy blog: http://lars.ingebrigtsen.no