GV

GeezerVison

The World Wide Web, restored to 800 pixels of glory.

Home|About|Gaming cabinet|Archives|How it works|Starter sites

On this site

  • [Python-Dev] [ssl] The weird case of IDNA
  • [Python-Dev] [ssl] The weird case of IDNA
  • [ date ]
  • [ thread ]
  • [ subject ]
  • [ author ]

This view

  • Original page
  • New address

GeezerVison is showing mail.python.org — [Python-Dev] [ssl] The weird case of IDNA

[Python-Dev] [ssl] The weird case of IDNA

Stephen J. Turnbull turnbull.stephen.fw at u.tsukuba.ac.jp
Sun Dec 31 10:37:53 EST 2017

  • Previous message (by thread): [Python-Dev] [ssl] The weird case of IDNA
  • Next message (by thread): [Python-Dev] [ssl] The weird case of IDNA
  • Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]

Nathaniel Smith writes:

 > Issue 1: Python's built-in IDNA implementation is wrong (implements
 > IDNA 2003, not IDNA 2008).

Is "wrong" the right word here?  I'll grant you that 2008 is *better*,
but typically in practice versions coexist for years.  Ie, is there no
backward compatibility issue with registries that specified IDNA 2003?

This is not entirely an idle question: I'd like to tool up on the
RFCs, research existing practice (especially in the East/Southeast Asian
registries), and contribute to the implementation if there may be an
issue remaining.  (Interpreting RFCs is something I'm reasonably good
at.)

Steve

  • Previous message (by thread): [Python-Dev] [ssl] The weird case of IDNA
  • Next message (by thread): [Python-Dev] [ssl] The weird case of IDNA
  • Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]

More information about the Python-Dev mailing list
You are visitor 01402520 — GeezerVison does not store the pages you look up.
Best viewed with Netscape Navigator 4.7 or Internet Explorer 6 at 800×600. No cookies required.