This issue tracker has been migrated to GitHub, and is currently read-only.
For more information, see the GitHub FAQs in the Python's Developer Guide.

Author gregory.p.smith
Recipients Lukasa, SamWhited, Socob, asvetlov, berker.peksag, christian.heimes, epicfaace, era, gregory.p.smith, loewis, marten, njs, r.david.murray, socketpair, underrun, wumpus
Date 2021-04-06.07:43:59
SpamBayes Score -1.0
Marked as misclassified Yes
Message-id <1617695039.76.0.137279190018.issue17305@roundup.psfhosted.org>
In-reply-to
Content
My PR merely adds a note to the docs linking to idna on pypi.  Don't get excited, it doesn't implement anything.  :P

re "Once Python has a working idna2008 encoder, we need to address integration into socket, ssl, http, and asyncio module."

... doing that _could_ be the same can of worms the browsers all had to go through?  We'd need to decide which behavior we wanted; pure? or matching what browsers do?  I suspect that is equivalent to the pypi idna https://github.com/kjd/idna 's uts46=True + transitional=True mode [*] but anyone doing this work would need to figure that out for sure if we wanted to default to behaving like browsers with the transitional compatibility mode.

That there is a need for a couple options on top of idna2008 as an encoding suggests it may not be a great fit for the Python codecs encodings system as those use a single string name.  We'd need to permute the useful possible combos of flag behavior in the names.  idna2003, idna2008, idna2008uts46, idna2008uts46transitional, and other combos of those if alternate combinations are deemed relevant.

I worry that a browser-transitional-behavior-matching situation may change over time as TLDs decide when to change their policies.  Is that an irrational fear?  Browsers are well equipped to deal with this as they've got frequent updates.  A PyPI package could as well.

[*] Browser history:

fwiw people wondering _why_ browsers like Chrome and Firefox don't "just blindly use idna2008 for everything" should go read the backwards compatibility transitional rationale and security concerns in https://bugs.chromium.org/p/chromium/issues/detail?id=61328
and https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=479520

(caution: be ready to filter out the random internet whiners from those threads)
History
Date User Action Args
2021-04-06 07:43:59gregory.p.smithsetrecipients: + gregory.p.smith, loewis, christian.heimes, r.david.murray, njs, asvetlov, socketpair, underrun, berker.peksag, era, marten, Lukasa, wumpus, SamWhited, Socob, epicfaace
2021-04-06 07:43:59gregory.p.smithsetmessageid: <1617695039.76.0.137279190018.issue17305@roundup.psfhosted.org>
2021-04-06 07:43:59gregory.p.smithlinkissue17305 messages
2021-04-06 07:43:59gregory.p.smithcreate