This page is a compilation of formal public feedback received so far. See Feedback for further information on this issue, how to discuss it, and how to provide feedback.
Date/Time: Sat Jan 23 20:25:55 CST 2016
Name: Valentin Gosu
Report Type: Error Report
Opt Subject: Implementations don't eforce rule V2 of UTS46
We recently implemented UTS46 support in rust-url which is used in servo. However, it seems that other browsers don't enforce validation rule 2, regarding - in the 3rd and 4th positions of the label. There are actually some URL which match this in use on youtube.com More info in: https://github.com/whatwg/url/issues/53 The reasoning for this rule isn't very well explained. If possible it should be removed.
Date/Time: Sun Apr 24 17:15:41 CDT 2016
Name: Marc Lehmann
Report Type: Error Report
Opt Subject: UTS 46 9.0.0 datafiles - problems in IdnaTest.txt
I had a look at the data files in the 9.0.0 directory, and found the following issues. The first two I already reported in 2011, but these problems are still in the file (the first number is the line number in the IdnaTest.txt file), and I didn't receive any feedback (other than that my feedback was received): 238 TOA ERROR B (a.b．c。d｡ expect got a.b.c.d.) () 239 TOA ERROR B (a.b.c。d。 expect got a.b.c.d.) () I refer to the explanation in my 2011 feedback, but basically, I think the toascii/tounicode columns are swapped. As they are, they say the toascii form of the name is identical with the name (but it should be "a.b.c.d."), while the tounicode version is "a.b.c.d.", but it should be identical to the name. 4795 TOU ERROR B (。صى᪱لا。岓᯲▭ᡂ expect صى᪱لا.岓᯲▭ᡂ got .صى᪱لا.岓᯲▭ᡂ) () 4889 TOU ERROR B (󠅊.𐋱₂ expect 𐋱2 got .𐋱2) () 4890 TOU ERROR B (󠅊.𐋱2 expect 𐋱2 got .𐋱2) () The problem with these is that the initial "." is missing in the tounicode column - none of the steps in chapter 4, processing, remove the initial dot, so it should still be there (I feel this is probably a problem with the specification). Or maybe it is specified elsewhere, but I couldn't find it. In fact, different UTS 46 implementations I tried fail in different ways for these, most commonly one gets a validity error due to the empty label - but empty labels are valid according to chapter 4.1. Apologies if these problems are due to my misunderstanding, or this still being draft data/draft specification and already known.