On Sat, Dec 05, 2009 at 02:04:18PM +0100, Kai Szymanski wrote: > Hi Chris, > hi joe, > > ok..i will compile bind (resp. the libs) by myself and try it out. Thanks! > > What is the way for the future: Should the browser encode idn's into > punycode and send it to the nameserver (like example below) or should > the browser send the un-encoded idn to the nameserver and the nameserver > have to do the "encoding-stuff" ? Or both ?
My preference would be to have what is entered on the address line and seen by the human be also what is sent to the resolver. This would require more changes, though. Second preference would be to have the standard subroutines that the browser calls do it. Under no circumstances should either the name server or the browser proper have to worry about details such as how to encode or decode different character formats. Isn't one of Alan Perlis' quotes about, a high-level language is one where you don't have to worry about unnecessary detail? -- /*********************************************************************\ ** ** Joe Yao j...@tux.org - Joseph S. D. Yao ** \*********************************************************************/ _______________________________________________ bind-users mailing list bind-users@lists.isc.org https://lists.isc.org/mailman/listinfo/bind-users
