This is an archived snapshot of W3C's public bugzilla bug tracker, decommissioned in April 2019. Please see the home page for more details.

Bug 26812 - It is not defined how "user agents should convert punycode in the value to IDN in the display and vice versa" should work
Summary: It is not defined how "user agents should convert punycode in the value to ID...
Status: RESOLVED FIXED
Alias: None
Product: WHATWG
Classification: Unclassified
Component: HTML (show other bugs)
Version: unspecified
Hardware: Other other
: P3 normal
Target Milestone: Unsorted
Assignee: Ian 'Hixie' Hickson
QA Contact: contributor
URL:
Whiteboard:
Keywords:
Depends on:
Blocks:
 
Reported: 2014-09-15 20:45 UTC by Olli Pettay
Modified: 2014-09-29 21:03 UTC (History)
3 users (show)

See Also:

Attachments

Description Olli Pettay 2014-09-15 20:45:14 UTC 
Some background https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1064430#c2
Comment 1 Ian 'Hixie' Hickson 2014-09-15 22:00:30 UTC 
What are the valid interpretations?
Comment 2 Jonathan Watt 2014-09-24 06:49:23 UTC 
http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc3492.txt says that puny-encoding is done on "labels", and section 3.5 of http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc1034.txt doesn't seem to make allowances for "@" either in labels or as a label separator. So it's not clear to me from that, or from the fact that puny-encoding is intended for _domains_, that puny-encoding an _email_address_ is a valid thing to do. If it is, it's not clear to me if or how the non-domain part should be encoded.

Let's say for the sake of argument that the non-domain part should be puny-encoded. How should we encode "user.name@foo.bar.baz"? Should we split on the label separator "." and puny-encode "user", "name@foo", "bar" and "baz" separately? That will treating "name@foo" as a "label" (with the 63 char limit on labels) which seem wrong.
Comment 3 Ian 'Hixie' Hickson 2014-09-29 21:03:38 UTC 
Ah, yeah, I didn't think people would interpret that as meaning to do anything to the user part. That can't sensibly be punycoded.

I've tried to make it clearer, though note that the conformance criteria here are on shaky ground since they're about UI that's not really observable by the page.

Let me know (reopen the bug) if this is insufficient. Thanks!
Comment 4 contributor 2014-09-29 21:03:53 UTC 
Checked in as WHATWG revision r8824.
Check-in comment: Try to clarify what it is that is punycoded in e-mail addresses
https://html5.org/tools/web-apps-tracker?from=8823&to=8824