Re: [icu-design] ICU API proposal: new class for UTS #46 (IDNA2008)

[Mark D. ☕ <ma...@ma...>]

LTGM. I think you have made reasonable choices regarding the U+FFFD and
options. (On the other hand, you and I have talked them over, so it won't
hurt to get fresh eyes!)

Mark

— Il meglio è l’inimico del bene —


On Thu, Apr 15, 2010 at 12:10, Markus Scherer <mar...@gm...> wrote:

> The proposed API has an abstract interface with a factory method. Worker
> functions take an IDNAErrors class object parameter which is currently just
> a container of error bits but could be extended later if we wanted to
> provide more error details. I defined an error bit for each type of error
> that is easily identifiable in the code. In the proposed API, IDNA
> processing errors (disallowed character, failed BiDi check, etc.) do not
> result in a failure UErrorCode and would not result in a Java exception.
>