Possibly relevant, not sure if helpful: - https://github.com/whatwg/url/issues/341 - https://github.com/whatwg/url/issues/733
On Fri, Jan 27, 2023, 7:26 PM Rob Sayre <[email protected]> wrote: > On Fri, Jan 27, 2023 at 5:16 PM Peter Saint-Andre <[email protected]> > wrote: > >> > That is what works. >> >> Well, IDNA2008 works for many applications and UTS-46 works for many >> other applications. I'm not as certain as you are that one of these >> technologies works and the other does not. Can you produce evidence >> that, by implication, IDNA2008 does not work? What problems does it not >> solve? >> > > That's the dispute, right? UTS-46 allows more names than IDNA2008, so it > will be more interoperable, and it is popular. > > If you look at this table, that seems correct: > > https://www.unicode.org/reports/tr46/#Table_IDNA_Comparisons > > I am not a fan of works of fiction in standards, and I think UTS-46 is > closer to the truth here. > > thanks, > Rob > _______________________________________________ > Uta mailing list > [email protected] > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/uta >
_______________________________________________ Uta mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/uta
