On 7/30/2012 3:11 PM, Tim Bannister wrote: > On 30 Jul 2012, at 23:00, William A. Rowe Jr. wrote: > >> Exactly my point. If you configure a utf-8 hostname, we know in fact it is >> a punycode encoding of that value, which is why I believe it makes sense to >> represent both when you test the vhost configs with -D DUMP_VHOSTS. If you >> configure a punycode hostname, it will be accepted with no hassle. There >> is no such thing as an actual utf-8 or extended ASCII (8 bit) hostname. > > At the moment I have configuration (not working, but “ready” anyway :-) for > the same virtual host in UTF-8 and punycode variants. I could easily set one > of them to differ from the other. > > How will the new httpd handle this kind of situation? I think what I'd expect > is a warning and then for one of them to take precedence and the other to be > ignored.
I expect we would follow the same duplicate detection logic we currently employ against ServerName/ServerAlias.
