> Interesting. As far as I can tell from RFC 3490, I think the libidn > behaviour is what follows from the specification. The specification > doesn't say anything about treating U+2024 as a label separator that I > could find. Do you agree with this?
Yes, I agree. > If so, I think the first step is > to update the RFC, and when that is done we can adapt the new behaviour > in libidn. Sure, that is one way to deal with this. Libidn users may not be clamoring for a resolution. Other implementations may be in more of a rush to resolve the conflict. (I work for Google.) > If libidn implements RFC 3490 incorrectly, we should definitely fix > that. Right now I don't understand what part of RFC 3490 we implement > incorrectly. So please explain further how the RFC 3490 language and > libidn differ. > > I think one could argue more convincingly that MSIE/Firefox implements > RFC 3490 incorrectly here. U+2024 isn't a label separator according to > RFC 3490, but they treat it as if it were. Yes, one could certainly argue that MSIE and Firefox implement RFC 3490 incorrectly, particularly if you read section 4 steps 4) and 5) carefully. However, I also believe that MSIE and Firefox chose a reasonable behavior and that it seems somewhat unlikely that they will change their behavior, given that the IDNA200X discussions already appear to be moving in their direction. Erik _______________________________________________ Help-libidn mailing list Help-libidn@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/help-libidn
