On Wed, Feb 23, 2022 at 02:52:02PM +0100, Kamil Dudka wrote:
On Wednesday, February 23, 2022 10:22:00 AM CET Dmitry Belyavskiy
> Dear Kamil,
> On Wed, Feb 23, 2022 at 8:51 AM Kamil Dudka <kdudka(a)redhat.com> wrote:
> > On Tuesday, February 22, 2022 10:50:06 PM CET Chris Adams wrote:
> > > Once upon a time, Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek <zbyszek(a)in.waw.pl>
> > > > Yes. But how many domains using idn are there? I worked on idn
> > > > in systemd, but when preparing the description of this change I
> > realized
> > > > that I have _never_ once used an idn domain outside of testing.
> > > >
> > > > And note that this is not about user-facing programs like firefox.
> > > > I assume that there might be _some_ use of idn in firefox. But for
> > > > command-line tools like curl this seems even less likely.
> > >
> > > I'm pretty sure use of IDN domains is a regional thing. I live in the
> > > US and don't see IDN domains in my normal use. But dropping support
> > > them from a core utility would be bad for those that live in regions
> > > where IDN domains may be more common.
> > If this appears to be a real problem, it is easy for us to re-enable IDN
> > in libcurl-minimal, even in an update of a stable Fedora release. So I do
> > not think we need to enable it proactively.
> > Being from Russia and having several years of interacting with Universal
> Acceptance, I'd say IDN is a must nowadays.
To be clear, I am not completely against including IDN in libcurl-minimal.
On the other hand, we removed IDN from libcurl in ubi9 images in September
and nobody has complained about it so far:
Isn't this also a bit of chicken and egg problem? You can't really use
IDN since tooling doesn't support it and tooling doesn't support it
because nobody uses it.
I'll note that personally I have no need for IDN.