Re:The Sad State of HTML Email Input Fields and IDNs
by AndyMcConachie on Sunday October 23, 2016 @12:19PM
(#12774123)
The current standard for IDNs is IDNA2008, which does not allow emojis. There are some ccTLDs that don't abide by the IDNA standard, and I think you'll find different browsers will show the emoji and others won't. Permitted code points for gTLDs are listed here. http://www.iana.org/domains/idn-tables
So strictly speaking xn--p38h.ws is not an IDN, and Google is doing the right thing by not allowing it. This doesn't make your job any easier, of course.
If you really want to explore this rabbit hole some good reading. RFC 4290 RFC 5891 RFC 6912 RFC 7940
Re:The Sad State of HTML Email Input Fields and IDNs
by jacksonsabey on Sunday October 23, 2016 @04:49PM
(#12775353)
Emojis are disallowed in IDNA2008. \u1F63B is in the disallowed but you can still register it on some TLDs https://whois.domaintools.com/xn--238h.com vs https://whois.domaintools.com/xn--238h.cf
Gmail for example still allows me to email myself at \u1F63B.*.com or xn--238h.*.com
http://unicode.org/reports/tr46/#Table_Data_File_FieldsYou can see the complete list of characters here:
ftp://ftp.unicode.org/%2F/Public/idna/8.0.0/IdnaMappingTable.txt
The real problem here is all the systems we use are more complex than people realize. Things like names (http://www.kalzumeus.com/2010/06/17/falsehoods-programmers-b...) & time (http://infiniteundo.com/post/25326999628/falsehoods-programm...) just cause issues that most developers will end up just ignoring, because in the end its just edge cases that will happen maybe once or twice, ever. Why put in the effort?