Do not display non-ascii characters as punycode, *IF* they are not problematic

RESOLVED WONTFIX

Status

()

RESOLVED WONTFIX
10 years ago
3 years ago

People

(Reporter: cjcypoi02, Unassigned)

Tracking

Trunk
Points:
---

Firefox Tracking Flags

(Not tracked)

Details

(URL)

Currently Mozilla products display non-ASCII characters as Unicode only if their top-level domains are in Mozilla whitelist:
http://www.mozilla.org/projects/security/tld-idn-policy-list.html

I suggest to display *non-problematic* characters as Unicode also if their domains are not whitelisted, as Safari does: http://www.w3.org/International/tests/results/results-idn-display

Updated

10 years ago
Assignee: smontagu → nobody
Component: Internationalization → Networking
QA Contact: i18n → networking
Define "non-problematic".

Gerv
Characters that are not similar (or identical) to other Unicode characters.

See the example. http://www.tilbehör.nu/ is displayed by Firefox as punycode, but not by Safari. Indeed ö is not a "problematic" character. See the link to w3.org I posted:

    «Safari displays any IDN containing only characters from one or more scripts 
    in the whitelist as Unicode, and any other IDN as punycode»

I think a mixed method will be the best solution: a TLD whitelist and a Unicode script whitelist, for non-whitelisted TLDs.
(In reply to comment #2)
> Characters that are not similar (or identical) to other Unicode characters.

Where do you suggest we find a list of such characters?

> See the example. http://www.tilbehör.nu/ is displayed by Firefox as punycode,
> but not by Safari. Indeed ö is not a "problematic" character. 

Have you checked all the thousands of characters in Unicode to make sure?

Gerv
Obviously no. I think Safari has a public policy for this behaviour.
A pointer to this policy would be a good step forward.

Why not ask the .nu registry to apply for whitelisting?

Gerv
There are tables of confusable characters on the Unicode site: see the references at http://unicode.org/reports/tr39/#Confusable_Detection. The tables are not exactly small ;-)
Right. And they aren't guaranteed to be complete either. Who do we blame if they aren't?

If a registry shows us their policies and makes a promise to stick to them, we know exactly who to blame if there's a problem, and can say so publicly. We also have a possible sanction against them - removing their TLD from the list. The current system seems to be working very well; we have no plans to change it.

Gerv
Status: NEW → RESOLVED
Last Resolved: 3 years ago
Resolution: --- → WONTFIX
You need to log in before you can comment on or make changes to this bug.