Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

Sign up for GitHub

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Jump to bottom

Best practice related to IDNs #119

Open
xfq opened this issue Sep 28, 2023 · 1 comment · May be fixed by #128
Open

Best practice related to IDNs #119

xfq opened this issue Sep 28, 2023 · 1 comment · May be fixed by #128
Labels
enhancement

Comments

@xfq
Copy link
Member

xfq commented Sep 28, 2023 •
edited
Loading

It might be useful to add some best practices related to IDNs, maybe to the Resource identifiers section, or a new section.

For example, in w3c/rdf-concepts#63 there are some guidelines like:

Contemporary documents should not be referring to Punycode at all, especially as a type of string, but should be using the IDNA2008 terminology of "A-labels" and "U-labels", defined in RFC 5890.
@xfq
Copy link
Member Author

xfq commented Dec 6, 2023

Here's another spec referring to Punycode: https://www.w3.org/TR/2023/WD-CSP3-20231030/#grammardef-host-char

This was referenced Mar 7, 2024
Closed
Open
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Assignees
No one assigned
Labels
enhancement
Projects
None yet
Milestone
No milestone
Development

Successfully merging a pull request may close this issue.

New section about IDNs w3c/bp-i18n-specdev
2 participants
@aphillips @xfq