We should have a 5.3 draft in about a month. And we should be able to merge a pull request in a week or two for an editor's draft...
Cheers
Chaals
01:22, 25 July 2017, Mark Svancarek <marksv@microsoft.com>:
I like this strategy... what is the timeline for 5.3?
-----Original Message-----
From: Don Hollander [mailto:don.hollander@icann.org]
Sent: Monday, July 24, 2017 1:22 AM
To: chaals is Charles McCathie Nevile <chaals@yandex.ru>; Martin J. Dürst <duerst@it.aoyama.ac.jp>; Mark Svancarek <marksv@microsoft.com>; john-ietf@jck.com; chaals is Charles McCathie Nevile <chaals@яндекс.рф>
Cc: Jan Nelson <Jan.Nelson@microsoft.com>; Shawn Steele <Shawn.Steele@microsoft.com>; Nalini J Elkins <nalini.elkins@insidethestack.com>; Jiankang <healthyao2000@qq.com>; ua-eai@icann.org; uki Ho <ylhe@coremail.cn>; Harish Chowdhary <harish@nixi.in>
Subject: Re: [UA-EAI] HTML 5.2 and Internationalized Eamil Addresses
Thanks for that.
I don’t expect it to be included in 5.2, but I would like to work on a strategy and tactics for getting it deployed in 5.3
From what I’ve read:
1) Define the problem. This shouldn’t be hard and according to Charles, the relevant group understand the issue.
2) Get community members to advocate for its inclusion in 5.3
a. This could be the existing and future EAI providers
b. This could be other browser based services that are expected to reply on an EAI facility
c. This could be niche browser developers – particularly those in IDN communities – China, India & Russia feel like large such communities
3) Get one or more of the major players to build facilities into their core browser and then advocate for an associated standard
Wordpress is a very commonly used Content Management System that doesn’t support EAI. I suspect it would be useful to get them on board.
So, another task is engaging the relevant parties from the above lists.
What else?
D
On 24/07/17, 2:27 PM, "ua-eai-bounces@icann.org on behalf of chaals is Charles McCathie Nevile" <ua-eai-bounces@icann.org on behalf of chaals@yandex.ru> wrote:
Hi,
I'm a co-chair of the relevant W3C Working Group ("Web Platform Working Group" <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.w3.org_WebPlatform_WG_&d=DwIGaQ&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=YI0XKyKCabKQi3GVWLvuoyCWjH9WBgEBxLbMnmhSRwo&m=xrytBAzcRwr3mZQSdoSPWR5d7TlV6_jjFR62INENUhg&s=FvTn1qJ4mQrlWTn63jPfq2O-YK4BLyeg4hEwXth8PnA&e= >) as well as a member of this list - and the person who raised the actual issues on HTML to make it support EAI better.
I can confirm that the WG understands the issue, and that as Martin says, without browser implementation it is difficult to make something a W3C Recommendation.
It will *help* if email providers can comment on the relevant issues, such as https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__github.com_w3c_html_issues_845&d=DwIGaQ&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=YI0XKyKCabKQi3GVWLvuoyCWjH9WBgEBxLbMnmhSRwo&m=xrytBAzcRwr3mZQSdoSPWR5d7TlV6_jjFR62INENUhg&s=pT_D6wT-uDF97pIAym-LDUq6CeJ34fstFthDr7Qo-M0&e= explaining who they are, that they are shipping products, ideally what sort of user numbers rely on this feature. It will help even more if we can show browser implementation - there are many browsers beyond the "usual suspects - google, microsoft, apple and mozilla" who are often seen as the ultimate arbiters, and some of them work in markets where this feature would be helpful.
It is also true, as Mark says, that the problem here is that "we" are making life a bit harder hard for developers who want to do useful things with non-ASCII email addresses, rather than making it impossible.
Like many, Yandex mail uses a hack to allow non-ASCII - as I did in this mail composed in Yandex mail's web client. The fact that so many systems are forced to create such a workaround constitutes some part of an argument for standardising it so browsers aren't dealing with such a mess, but getting a prototype implementation would be really helpful too - most browser makers provide an email service, and seem OK with that being work each such service does for themselves.
It is highly unlikely given the apparent lack of browser implementation today that we will get any progress for HTML 5.2, which is planned to ship later this year. But it is possible to get changes into early drafts of HTML 5.3. Without browser implementation driving "de facto" standardisation, it will be important to describe the common features and the benefits and drawbacks of client-side implementation if this is to have much chance of surviving from a draft to a Recommendation.
cheers
Chaals
24.07.2017, 03:44, "Martin J. Dürst" <duerst@it.aoyama.ac.jp>:
> Hello Mark, others,
>
> On 2017/07/24 07:14, Mark Svancarek via UA-EAI 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@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?
>
> It's much more the browsers that need to be influenced than the "spec
> committee". As John has already explained, W3C, in particular when it
> comes to HTML and related technology, doesn't move parts of a spec
> forward if they don't have actual implementations.
>
> Regards, Martin.
>
>> 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@qq.com]
>> Sent: Thursday, July 13, 2017 3:24 PM
>> To: Hollander Don <don.hollander@icann.org<mailto:don.hollander@icann.org>>; Mark Svancarek <marksv@microsoft.com<mailto:marksv@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@cnnic.cn<mailto:yaojk@cnnic.cn>
>> 发件人: John C Klensin <john-ietf@jck.com<mailto:john-ietf@jck.com>>
>> 日期: 2017年7月14日 GMT+8 04:03:53
>> 重发－收件人: healthyao2000@qq.com<mailto:healthyao2000@qq.com>
>> 收件人: Nalini J Elkins <nalini.elkins@insidethestack.com<mailto:nalini.elkins@insidethestack.com>>, Don Hollander <don.hollander@icann.org<mailto:don.hollander@icann.org>>, YAO Jiankang <yaojk@cnnic.cn<mailto:yaojk@cnnic.cn>>, Marvin Cheng <mwu@coremail.cn<mailto:mwu@coremail.cn>>, Yuki Ho <ylhe@coremail.cn<mailto:ylhe@coremail.cn>>, Harish Chowdhary <harish@nixi.in<mailto:harish@nixi.in>>, "Dr. AJAY D A T A" <ajay@data.in<mailto:ajay@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://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__github.com_w3c_html_issues_845&d=DwIGaQ&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=YI0XKyKCabKQi3GVWLvuoyCWjH9WBgEBxLbMnmhSRwo&m=xrytBAzcRwr3mZQSdoSPWR5d7TlV6_jjFR62INENUhg&s=pT_D6wT-uDF97pIAym-LDUq6CeJ34fstFthDr7Qo-M0&e= <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com_-3Furl-3Dhttps-253A-252F-252Fgithub.com-252Fw3c-252Fhtml-252Fissues-252F845-26data-3D02-257C01-257Cmarksv-2540microsoft.com-257C3bacbdc267a8494587e408d4ca3be289-257C72f988bf86f141af91ab2d7cd011db47-257C1-257C0-257C636355805932629324-26sdata-3DsaE8T8RCcj1JUHsvFlZpkbzy89aqXoisL14Gmtrk5c0-253D-26reserved-3D0&d=DwIGaQ&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=YI0XKyKCabKQi3GVWLvuoyCWjH9WBgEBxLbMnmhSRwo&m=xrytBAzcRwr3mZQSdoSPWR5d7TlV6_jjFR62INENUhg&s=tVgxvORKMa5DqXcB8yILcMwuc26eGGilAaYketP3tPg&e= > . The overall issues
>> list for the HTML 5.2 spec, including a link to the working
>> draft, is at https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__github.com_w3c_html&d=DwIGaQ&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=YI0XKyKCabKQi3GVWLvuoyCWjH9WBgEBxLbMnmhSRwo&m=xrytBAzcRwr3mZQSdoSPWR5d7TlV6_jjFR62INENUhg&s=Jaw-TY3ZyBXYpu5qFC_cpTCkXNwMHxkGTxfG008cKaI&e= <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com_-3Furl-3Dhttps-253A-252F-252Fgithub.com-252Fw3c-252Fhtml-26data-3D02-257C01-257Cmarksv-2540microsoft.com-257C3bacbdc267a8494587e408d4ca3be289-257C72f988bf86f141af91ab2d7cd011db47-257C1-257C0-257C636355805932629324-26sdata-3DsphZH5ybpNlVtuPp-252F0NX5ydqBeNbHBEBBZ0ngafbRBk-253D-26reserved-3D0&d=DwIGaQ&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=YI0XKyKCabKQi3GVWLvuoyCWjH9WBgEBxLbMnmhSRwo&m=xrytBAzcRwr3mZQSdoSPWR5d7TlV6_jjFR62INENUhg&s=W3W8TyQj0BoyubzGwVVwygNKJKRBMeJ9DktxDhWtpu8&e= > . 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
>
> _______________________________________________
> UA-EAI mailing list
> UA-EAI@icann.org
> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ua-eai
--
Chaals is Charles McCathie Nevile
find more at https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__yandex.com&d=DwIGaQ&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=YI0XKyKCabKQi3GVWLvuoyCWjH9WBgEBxLbMnmhSRwo&m=xrytBAzcRwr3mZQSdoSPWR5d7TlV6_jjFR62INENUhg&s=FzO_Bg5hB89bgL7SNE-wclt2L1JYw5_dmQ_yTCiPvag&e=
_______________________________________________
UA-EAI mailing list
UA-EAI@icann.org
https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ua-eai
Private mail - Chaals is Charles McCathie Nevile - Standards Declaimer