Subject: Re: [idn] nameprep2 and the slash homograph issue

From: "JFC (Jefsey) Morfin" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 25 Feb 2005 03:02:16 +0100

Eric,
let not confuse the issues. There is no problem in introducing a Draft for 
information. This Draft should only be a about color code for displaying 
the URI when the U/IRI is displayed in a non unique color. It should only 
include an introduction to document the needs for a multicolored display, 
then the needs for a standardized colored code, then the considered colored 
parts of the URI: scheme, levels, etc. and the IANA consideration for the 
registration of the list of the colors. So the multicolored display is a 
MAY, but then the shade of the colors should be a MUST: this is one of the 
interest of multicolored display, that this is a cross application/browser 
standard.

When I talk of the W3C, this is because the first need is for the Web. But 
obviously everywhere an URI is displayed (mail agents, instant messaging, 
advertizing, word processors, etc. ) the color code should be the same.
jfc

On 02:18 25/02/2005, Erik van der Poel said:
>Hi Jefsey,
>
>Thanks for the support. Your idea about giving each level of the domain 
>name a standard color is very interesting. I am reworking nameprep.org 
>right now, and I'll probably include a section near the end about this. 
>Note that just because this section is in the doc at nameprep.org does not 
>mean that it would necessarily find its way into any Internet Draft, let 
>alone a new RFC. If this section tries to mandate colors, it probably 
>would not be in a normative (or MUST) part of an IETF RFC. It would end up 
>in an informative appendix (or a MAY).
>
>No, I don't think W3C is the right organization for this. IDNA has already 
>been produced by the IETF, and domain name issues don't really belong at 
>W3C, even though URIs are covered by some of their docs.
>
>Mozilla has very different plans in this space. I have been unable to 
>convince them of the need for tools/extensions. So far. :-)
>
>Erik
>
>JFC (Jefsey) Morfin wrote:
>>Very, very good idea.
>>This could be a _standard_ way to print the domain name in the browser 
>>bar. A very simple way could just be to print every URL in the bar with a 
>>different color for each level. This does not change anything in any 
>>procedure and can be very easily tought and understood. If one 
>>standardizes the colors it may help customer support, advertizing, 
>>discussing, etc? permitting to speak of the "blue", "red", "green" part 
>>of a discussed URI. This would be far easier for lay people than to talk 
>>of first, second, etc. level - whatever the language.
>>I suggest you write a private Draft of this asap. Probably a single page 
>>enough. Mozilla could make it an immediate update if it would be an RFC 
>>on the standard track. This is would stop the developing campaign of 
>>concerns, with something which would be considered as positive.
>>Or, would this be for the W3C?
>>jfc
>>At 16:08 24/02/2005, Erik van der Poel wrote:
>>
>>>Here I agree with you. I'm not going to try to come up with the wording 
>>>for that, but this morning I started to think that the right-to-left DNS 
>>>and IDN spoofing problems *could* be addressed at the UI level by 
>>>providing a *tool* that security-conscious users could *choose* to use.

_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf