Re: AW: treatment of U+002E that is produced by NFKC

[Erik van der Poel]

> Yes, we should definitely document the problem in the manual.  Erik, do
> you know of any good links that discuss this issue?

The only discussion of this that I know of is in the idna-update
archives. The Internet Drafts may soon be updated to include this
issue too.

> Fortunately, all the idna_* APIs in libidn takes a 'flags' parameter.
> It would be possibly to add a new flag IDNA_TREAT_U2024_AS_DOT and have
> the code treat U+2024 as a dot character as per RFC 3490 section 3.1 if
> the flag is given.  I've confirmed that this makes libidn produce the
> same output as MSIE/Firefox output.

Note that U+2024 is not the only character that produces one or more
U+002Es in NFKC. See the Unicode 3.2 version of the UnicodeData.txt
file.

Erik