Change idn-* formats to use UTS #46 and move to registry #1660
+6
−23
Conversation
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
gregsdennis
approved these changes
Feb 2, 2026
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
2 participants
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
Resolves #1636
hostnameto it's draft-06 definition that doesn't require validating IDNs.idn-hostnameandidn-emailidn-hostnameandidn-emailto the format registry and update to be defined by IDNA2008 using theUTS #46mapping.I was a little uncertain what to do with the
definingBodyanddefinitionfield in this case. It would seem to make sense to link toUTS #46(and maybe the related RFCs as well), but that doesn't seem to be the convention. Those fields are dedicated to where those formats are defined as formats, not the specification that defines them.Should we change that convention? Should we add another field for the specification? Should we just leave it as I've done here and just leave out those fields like similar cases in the registry?
I think it makes more sense for the registry to reference the specification of the format, not JSON Schema, or OpenAPI unless there is no other specification and that's where the format is actually defined. I'm don't think that's the case for any formats we have registered.