These are old domains but apparently registration for them opened in December 2011 (?), so we should add PSL entries. I haven't done enough research yet to write an actual patch.
Thanks Peter. I have been in touch with registry and we have these submitted from them directly.
Created attachment 587106 [details] [diff] [review] Diff Supplied directly from AFNIC This was submitted to us from AFNIC, the registry.
Comment on attachment 587106 [details] [diff] [review] Diff Supplied directly from AFNIC There are some problems with this diff. Minor: "TLD is opened since date" is useless commentary that shouldn't be in the file. More major: The link on all three is a PR article, not a policy document, the homepage for the registrar, or some other encyclopedic resource. Worse, this document merely says these domains are "subject to the same rules as FR" but our PSL entry for FR shows many domains in addition to just "fr". So the waters are muddy on what's actually supported.
I'll tighten this up.
Jothan: were you able to get more details here? Gerv
pkasting: what should we do here? Half a loaf is better than no bread; should we stick the base domains into the list to help Chrome, and refine the entries as and when we get more of an idea of what the substructure is? Gerv
I'm not opposed to checking in the base domains with comments noting that the actual policies are unclear and we probably need a more authoritative list.
Created attachment 603213 [details] [diff] [review] Patch v.2 Here's a diff with improved formatting and links to a more authoritative document. As far as I can see, these domains have no sub-structure. Gerv
Comment on attachment 603213 [details] [diff] [review] Patch v.2 Looks good