[UA-EAI] HTML 5.2 and Internationalized Eamil Addresses

Sun Jul 23 22:59:14 UTC 2017

Mark,

I may be excessively pessimistic, but my impression from what
I've seen is that only three forms of input to the relevant spec
writers are likely to have any effect... and I'm not sure about
and don't want to encourage the third);

(1) Major implementers of either web browsers or HTML validation
systems point out that their inability, or the inability of
others, to treat non-ASCII email addresses as email addresses is
a problem, or at least a significant annoyance.

(2) Strong indications from major supporters of W3C that this is
unacceptable and won't be tolerated any more, even if it means
voting with their support levels.

(3) Governments or other regulatory bodies explaining to W3C
that actions that do not validate non-ASCII addresses as
ordinary email addresses are sufficiently hostile to national
policies encouraging such addresses that they will seek ways to
ban use of W3C recommendations and products conforming to them
within the relevant countries or other sanctions against W3C and
its professional staff.

I hope I'm wrong.

    john

--On Sunday, July 23, 2017 22:14 +0000 Mark Svancarek
<marksv at microsoft.com> wrote:

> John, sorry for delay responding.  Hopefully there is still
> time to influence the spec.
> 
> I've taken a peek at the Coremail site and confirmed that
> they simply disregard the Email input type and use the generic
> Text input type instead.  I presume that XGenPlus does the
> same.
> 
> So, the wrongness of the HTML 5.x spec in regard to the Email
> input type (which is apparently very well known, and
> documented at W3C.org), doesn't prevent use of browsers to
> implement EAI services.  It does make web designers work
> harder, though. [cid:image002.jpg at 01D303C5.DC014DF0]
> 
> UASG must engage, since the spec violates both the RFC as well
> as a good practice of UA-readiness (i.e. don't invent your
> own validation rules).  But it's not blocking people from
> using browsers to send or receive to/from EAI email addresses.
> It's blocking web designers from easily building UA-ready
> web pages that receive email address strings from users.
> 
> I suppose that if Coremail or Xgenplus, as email service
> providers, were to reach out to the spec committee this might
> influence them.  Is that a reasonable assumption?
> 
> Also, UASG could reach out to some appropriate technical press
> people and have them request clarification from the spec
> committee.
> 
> /marksv
> 
> From: Jiankang [mailto:healthyao2000 at qq.com]
> Sent: Thursday, July 13, 2017 3:24 PM
> To: Hollander Don
> <don.hollander at icann.org<mailto:don.hollander at icann.org>>;
> Mark Svancarek
> <marksv at microsoft.com<mailto:marksv at microsoft.com>> Subject:
> Fwd: HTML 5.2 and Internationalized Eamil Addresses
> 
> uasg may do something for it.
> 
> it is very important for UA
> 
> Jiankang Yao
> 
> From my phone
> 
> 以下是转发的邮件：
> 重发－发件人: yaojk at cnnic.cn<mailto:yaojk at cnnic.cn>
> 发件人: John C Klensin
> <john-ietf at jck.com<mailto:john-ietf at jck.com>> 日期:
> 2017年7月14日 GMT+8 04:03:53
> 重发－收件人:
> healthyao2000 at qq.com<mailto:healthyao2000 at qq.com> 收件人:
> Nalini J Elkins
> <nalini.elkins at insidethestack.com<mailto:nalini.elkins at insidet
> hestack.com>>, Don Hollander
> <don.hollander at icann.org<mailto:don.hollander at icann.org>>, YAO
> Jiankang <yaojk at cnnic.cn<mailto:yaojk at cnnic.cn>>, Marvin Cheng
> <mwu at coremail.cn<mailto:mwu at coremail.cn>>, Yuki Ho
> <ylhe at coremail.cn<mailto:ylhe at coremail.cn>>, Harish Chowdhary
> <harish at nixi.in<mailto:harish at nixi.in>>, "Dr. AJAY D A T A"
> <ajay at data.in<mailto:ajay at data.in>> 主题: HTML 5.2 and
> Internationalized Eamil Addresses Hi.
> 
> I learned today that W3C is about to take the HTML 5.2
> specification into the final review and approval process within
> the next few days.  For email addresses, that specification
> provides for IDNA interpretation of non-ASCII domain names, but
> specifies treating addresses with non-ASCII characters in
> local-parts as invalid.   If non-ASCII email addresses are not
> accepted, no one who uses email via a web browser will be able
> to use those addressesbe SMTPUTF8 address and no one who uses
> such an address will be able to communicate with anyone
> dependent on a browser.  In addition, because SMTP servers
> rarely have reliable information about the MUAs and mail access
> mechanisms preferred by individual users, an SMTP server
> operator who might have some users accessing email via a web
> browser has considerable incentive to not advertise SMTPUTF8 at
> all.
> 
> I understand the key reason for this decision in HTML 5.2 is
> that no existing browser supports non-ASCII local parts in
> email addresses.  It has been strongly suggested that no one
> is really asking for the functionality,   That obviously
> creates a chicken-and-egg problem: SMTPUTF8 addresses are not
> supported in browsers because the HTML spec says to not do so
> and and because there is no perceived demand and there is no
> perceived demand (or browser implementations because the
> functionality is not broadly available.  I find it hard to
> believe that there are no browsers around that can accept
> email addresses with non-ASCII local parts, especially in
> countries and with email products that claim to have millions
> of users with non-ASCII addresses, but W3C apparently has been
> unable to find them.
> 
> I've done all I can to turn this situation around, with no
> actual success.  The problem remains that, as far as @3C knows,
> there is no browser support than and no demand from any actor
> they feel an obligation to listen to (as distinct from demand
> from various individuals who think supporting these addresses
> would be a good idea).  If there is browser support out there,
> even in browsers whose only user interface is in a language
> that does not use Latin script, W3C needs to hear about it.
> Equally important, if SMTPUTF8 support in browsers, with
> non-ASCII addresses treated as valid, is required, they need
> to hear that, and need to hear whether the requirement is
> important enough to hold HTML 5.2 up until the changes are
> made or whether they should just consider the issue more
> carefully for future versions.
> 
> The best way to comment is by adding to the github thread at
> https://github.com/w3c/html/issues/845<https://na01.safelinks.
> protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fgithub.com%2Fw3c%2Fh
> tml%2Fissues%2F845&data=02%7C01%7Cmarksv%40microsoft.com%7C3ba
> cbdc267a8494587e408d4ca3be289%7C72f988bf86f141af91ab2d7cd011db
> 47%7C1%7C0%7C636355805932629324&sdata=saE8T8RCcj1JUHsvFlZpkbzy
> 89aqXoisL14Gmtrk5c0%3D&reserved=0> .  The overall issues list
> for the HTML 5.2 spec, including a link to the working draft,
> is at
> https://github.com/w3c/html<https://na01.safelinks.protection.
> outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fgithub.com%2Fw3c%2Fhtml&data=02
> %7C01%7Cmarksv%40microsoft.com%7C3bacbdc267a8494587e408d4ca3be
> 289%7C72f988bf86f141af91ab2d7cd011db47%7C1%7C0%7C6363558059326
> 29324&sdata=sphZH5ybpNlVtuPp%2F0NX5ydqBeNbHBEBBZ0ngafbRBk%3D&r
> eserved=0> .  If the various actors on this subject in W3C
> (almost all of whom appear to be primarily users of European
> languages) don't know who you are (or someone else commenting
> is), I strongly suggest providing comments to establish that
> context as part of any remarks you post, especially if those
> comments involve discussion of deployed implementations or
> large numbers of users.
> 
> If one wants global/ universal acceptance of non-ASCII email
> addresses, it seems to me that, for the reasons described
> above, HTML 5.x is on the critical path and acceptance is not
> going very far without it treating those addresses as valid.
> 
> best,
>    john