23005 2013-08-19 11:04:36 +0000 IDNA-related bits should instead reference terminology from http://url.spec.whatwg.org/ 2014-01-07 21:12:14 +0000 1 1 1 Unclassified WHATWG HTML unspecified Other other RESOLVED FIXED http://www.whatwg.org/specs/web-apps/current-work/#unicode-serialization-of-an-origin P3 normal Unsorted 23891 1 contributor ian annevk ian mike contributor oldest_to_newest 92261 0 contributor 2013-08-19 11:04:36 +0000 Specification: http://www.whatwg.org/specs/web-apps/current-work/multipage/origin-0.html Multipage: http://www.whatwg.org/C#unicode-serialization-of-an-origin Complete: http://www.whatwg.org/c#unicode-serialization-of-an-origin Referrer: http://www.whatwg.org/specs/web-apps/current-work/multipage/ Comment: IDNA-related bits should instead reference terminology from http://url.spec.whatwg.org/ Posted from: 207.218.72.65 by annevk@annevk.nl User agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.8; rv:26.0) Gecko/20100101 Firefox/26.0 95586 1 ian 2013-10-30 23:24:55 +0000 Do you have specific text in mind, or should I work it out? 95604 2 annevk 2013-10-31 10:54:43 +0000 http://www.whatwg.org/specs/web-apps/current-work/#unicode-serialization-of-an-origin -> It seems this algorithm is also defined in https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc6454 Why is it still in HTML? Or are we abandoning the RFC per my emails to the WHATWG list? You could use http://url.spec.whatwg.org/#concept-domain-to-unicode and then serialize the output if you decide to keep it. Note that this requires the host part of the origin to be stored as a sequence of labels or IPv6. I.e. the result of http://url.spec.whatwg.org/#concept-host-parser http://www.whatwg.org/specs/web-apps/current-work/#ascii-serialization-of-an-origin -> See above. You could use http://url.spec.whatwg.org/#concept-domain-to-ascii and then serialize the output if you decide to keep it. http://www.whatwg.org/specs/web-apps/current-work/#dom-document-domain -> You want to use http://url.spec.whatwg.org/#concept-host-parser and http://url.spec.whatwg.org/#concept-host-serializer here. And maybe keep internal state on the non-serialized value. You cannot really say "if value is IPv4" as IPv4 and domain names are not distinguishable at the syntax level. A host is either IPv6 or a set of domain labels. 95625 3 ian 2013-10-31 19:21:20 +0000 This text predates that RFC. I just haven't updated it since. I agree that it might be worth just ignoring that RFC though. What do you mean, you can't identify an IPv4 address? If it's four numeric labels, isn't it unambiguously an IPv4 address? 95630 4 annevk 2013-10-31 19:59:10 +0000 Reportedly that is up to the stack that gets passed the domain labels to figure out. There are no restrictions in DNS either that prevent a host from looking like an IPv4 address. As for the RFC, there's a mailing list thread. Need to get Adam Barth to comment on it. 96552 5 ian 2013-11-19 22:04:57 +0000 I agree that domain names might be a superset of IPv4 addresses, but that doesn't mean you can't identify an IPv4 address. (In reply to Anne from comment #2) > http://www.whatwg.org/specs/web-apps/current-work/#unicode-serialization-of- > an-origin > -> It seems this algorithm is also defined in > https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc6454 Why is it still in HTML? Or are we > abandoning the RFC per my emails to the WHATWG list? You could use > http://url.spec.whatwg.org/#concept-domain-to-unicode and then serialize the > output if you decide to keep it. Note that this requires the host part of > the origin to be stored as a sequence of labels or IPv6. I.e. the result of > http://url.spec.whatwg.org/#concept-host-parser I don't really understand the benefit of invoking url.spec.whatwg.org here. All that does is invoke the same algorithm the HTML spec invokes today, no? Wouldn't that just be adding one step of indirection? Similar questions with the others. I don't really understand what problem we're solving here. 96585 6 annevk 2013-11-20 12:02:24 +0000 This might become moot if all browsers move to IDNA2008 or UTS #46 or some such. However, right now what HTML is not defining and URL is, is that it's not exactly IDNA2003 but IDNA2003 with an updated version of Unicode (not 3.2). 96729 7 contributor 2013-11-22 20:38:41 +0000 Checked in as WHATWG revision r8312. Check-in comment: Mark areas that need updating for this bug (moving IDNA references to URL standard references). http://html5.org/tools/web-apps-tracker?from=8311&to=8312 98103 8 ian 2014-01-07 20:23:14 +0000 Ok, done. Thanks for the explanation, and for taking the IDNA issue. :-) 98106 9 contributor 2014-01-07 21:12:14 +0000 Checked in as WHATWG revision r8381. Check-in comment: Defer to URL spec for IDNA stuff. http://html5.org/tools/web-apps-tracker?from=8380&to=8381