Re: libidn2 support
Date: Thu, 03 Nov 2016 16:05:06 +0530
On 3 Nov 2016, at 15:44, Simon Josefsson wrote:
> If you have more ideas on why the above is wrong, or what could
> realistically be implemented in a network application, that would be
> interesting to discuss.
> I know we both are aware that this is just a rehash of the discussion
> that went on while IDNA2008 was being specified. So let's not end up
> in the same loop. The problems brought up then are still valid though,
> and TR46 was developed as a response to those concerns.
I did not respond to the rest of your mail, sorry.
I am still of the view that the longer people wait to adopt IDNA2008 and forget IDNA2003, the more problems we get.
- application/pgp-signature attachment: OpenPGP digital signature