[UA-discuss] [UA-EAI] Issue needs discussion and closure
arnt at gulbrandsen.priv.no
Mon Mar 12 13:02:44 UTC 2018
Mark Svancarek via UA-EAI writes:
> Discussing with Dennis, we wonder if M3AAWG already has a
> recommendation on this topic. If so, we should adopt theirs.
Well, there already is a source of truth, you can see it if you look down:
I don't know where each of you are in the world, but the keyboard, whatever
it is, provides strong guidance (even if not an absolute rule) on what sort
of identifiers you and your correspondents can use.
I know you (Mark/Dennis) thought about it more generally. Achoring the
question to the keyboard can help segment the general question into
usefully concrete ones, though.
The rule (or each part-rule of there are several) can be stricter then the
keyboard, can map the keyboarding ability exactly, or can be laxer.
1. Should there be any sort of general rule that restricts identifiers more
than keyboards do? (Some such rules do exist, e.g. "can't have @ in a
localpart" or "can't practically have space in a localpart".) IMO we cannot
and should not expect anything on people's keyboards today to be useless or
harmful, therefore we should not add rules to block anything.
2. Or that describes exactly, o so that email providers can enforce that
people can enter only what their keyboards permit, and nothing else?
Personally I don't see the point. A lot of tedious work and what will it
achieve? Please don't answer "block confusing glyphs", because а@gamil.com
and a at gmail.com may be confusable, but gamil and gmail aren't going to
3. Or be laxer? For example: "Software and sites SHOULD support all of the
following code points in localparts: τυφχψωϊϋόύώϙϛϝϟϡϸ… Sites SHOULD allow
users to include any code points from that list, if they permit user choice
at all." I don't see the point either. It's the kind of rule people ignore.
More information about the UA-discuss