On 27/02/2012, Jeroen Ruigrok van der Werven <[email protected]> wrote: > -On [20120226 21:11], Stephane Bortzmeyer ([email protected]) wrote: >>Note that it is a direct violation of RFC 5892. U+1F4A9, being of >>category So, should be DISALLOWED. The registry was wrong to accept >>it. > > Oh, this will be fun. So I guess they did not check the codepoint categories > in their validation step then? (I honestly have no idea how NICs do this > nowadays, it's been ages since I messed with stuff on that level.)
Now isn't everyone going to want their logo encoded so they can have a domain like this? ~ The pressure to do so could be enormous.
