[UA-discuss] UASG010 - Quick Guide to Linkification

Mark Svancarek marksv at microsoft.com
Sat Sep 30 00:04:02 UTC 2017

Hmm, I don’t recall approving that principle (hopefully it was added while I was out on leave, and not just because I carelessly failed to notice it was being added).

I mention that because it seems the opposite of what we could recommend i.e. we SHOULD allow use of Highly Restrictive and continue to discourage Moderately Restrictive.  Do we need to revisit this?  Sorry if I am just confused.

Note that, as Asmus points out, our concern is about script-mixing within a label, not use of different scripts in different labels.  Tex’s examples are all the latter, and should linkify cleanly by UA-ready SW.


From: ua-discuss-bounces at icann.org [mailto:ua-discuss-bounces at icann.org] On Behalf Of Asmus Freytag
Sent: Friday, September 29, 2017 2:40 PM
To: ua-discuss at icann.org
Subject: Re: [UA-discuss] UASG010 - Quick Guide to Linkification

On 9/29/2017 2:26 PM, Tex Texin wrote:
Some questions:

  1.  Do I understand correctly, that the recommendation to not linkify highly restrictive strings means that tex@普遍接受-测试.世界<mailto:tex@%E6%99%AE%E9%81%8D%E6%8E%A5%E5%8F%97-%E6%B5%8B%E8%AF%95.%E4%B8%96%E7%95%8C> would not become a link? Or http:// 普遍接受-测试.世界.com?

Highly restrictive means that latin cannot be mixed with Chinese or Japanese characters.

Some script mixing *within* a label should be restricted as it is a security risk. Script mixing across a FQDN or between local part and host seem to be rather likely scenarios instead.

For certain scripts, ASCII admixture (just ASCII, not all of Latin) would be common practice in the writing system and it may be common enough/benign enough to allow it.

However, you might also want to address European digits for those scripts where native digits exist and are widely / predominantly used, vs. scripts where the native digits are more of historic/cultural interest. (In Arabic you have both, depending on the region).

Mixing digit sets in the same label should be a no-no and indicated something's not well-formed.

  1.  I do not understand “Linkification should be determined by the implied intent of the user's entry” Is this intended to mean that the scheme (http, mailto, etc) should be added to form the link? Or some other determination of intent? If the former, it should be stated more clearly.

My naive interpretation had to do with things like tables or data records where the purpose of a particular field would be a URL.


From: ua-discuss-bounces at icann.org<mailto:ua-discuss-bounces at icann.org> [mailto:ua-discuss-bounces at icann.org] On Behalf Of Don Hollander
Sent: Thursday, September 28, 2017 11:19 AM
To: Universal Acceptance
Subject: [UA-discuss] UASG010 - Quick Guide to Linkification

A quick update on Linkification

We have published an updated Quick Guide to Linkification https://uasg.tech/wp-content/uploads/2017/06/UASG010-Quick-Guide-to-Linkification.pdf<https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fuasg.tech%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2F2017%2F06%2FUASG010-Quick-Guide-to-Linkification.pdf&data=02%7C01%7Cmarksv%40microsoft.com%7Ce0ff7a322ef44f31a64208d507829df2%7C72f988bf86f141af91ab2d7cd011db47%7C1%7C1%7C636423179950153243&sdata=gGQ5xhFTuJLf1kkFXWsOnfGdOH%2FMb0XbhK7tLiJfqzQ%3D&reserved=0>  This builds on discussions we had post the UASG meeting in Seattle in April.

We are also working on an evaluation of Linkification in major Social Media Communication applications.   (Here’s the link to the Help Wanted advertisement - Help Wanted: Linkification Evaluation<https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fuasg.tech%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2F2016%2F11%2FHelp-Wanted%25E2%2580%25A6-Linkification-Evaluation-1.0.pdf&data=02%7C01%7Cmarksv%40microsoft.com%7Ce0ff7a322ef44f31a64208d507829df2%7C72f988bf86f141af91ab2d7cd011db47%7C1%7C1%7C636423179950153243&sdata=EuBYBxDZgX1FbvYLIbUE6RKuC4Jhk%2B7DQSrRa5guzH4%3D&reserved=0>)

This evaluation is being built on a replicable testing platform so that we can readily repeat the process in the future.   While early days, we expect to provide a preliminary report during the ICANN60 meeting.   As we go through the testing it is raising some additional questions about our Good Practice guide and expectations.  We fully expect that once the evaluation is completed we’ll again review UASG010 based on real world experiences.


Don Hollander
Universal Acceptance Steering Group
Skype: don_hollander

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/ua-discuss/attachments/20170930/237f8b5d/attachment.html>

More information about the UA-discuss mailing list