Julian Mehnle wrote:
> TLDs with dashes (e.g., ".xn--wgv71a") are now correctly matched.
LOL, that spooked me when I *claimed* that my rxwhois client
supports the IDN test TLDs before they went live, and I later
found that the code trying to parse NIC handles matched input
with "-" before the code dealing with TLDs... ;-)
BTW, GNU libidn says that xn--wgv71a is no valid IDNA output.
Maybe take one of the 22 labels proposed in the 2606bis draft:
http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ellermann-idnabis-test-tlds#section-4
Frank
-------------------------------------------
Sender Policy Framework: http://www.openspf.org
Modify Your Subscription: http://www.listbox.com/member/
Archives: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/735/=now
RSS Feed: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/735/
Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com
> TLDs with dashes (e.g., ".xn--wgv71a") are now correctly matched.
LOL, that spooked me when I *claimed* that my rxwhois client
supports the IDN test TLDs before they went live, and I later
found that the code trying to parse NIC handles matched input
with "-" before the code dealing with TLDs... ;-)
BTW, GNU libidn says that xn--wgv71a is no valid IDNA output.
Maybe take one of the 22 labels proposed in the 2606bis draft:
http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ellermann-idnabis-test-tlds#section-4
Frank
-------------------------------------------
Sender Policy Framework: http://www.openspf.org
Modify Your Subscription: http://www.listbox.com/member/
Archives: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/735/=now
RSS Feed: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/735/
Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com