IDN support in streams

[dunglas]

As discussed in this thread: http://marc.info/?l=php-internals&m=141107203812897, this PR add IDN support in streams. The way it is done (by adding a new internal field in the php_url struct) will allow adding easily IDN validation in ext/filter.

TODO:

• Write an RFC
• Add Windows support

Tests must be enhanced, it would be great if the PHP org can setup for test purpose:

• An HTTP, HTTPS and FTP enabled server with an IDN

[laruence]

I am not sure edit author info for few lines change is okey...

[dunglas]

@laruence removed except from url[.c|.h].

[auroraeosrose]

HI - besides the mailing list - do you have an RFC in draft for this? This is adding a new library dependency for PHP core (ICU) which requires some additional discussion and it also doesn't have any of the pieces to compile on windows to even test. So it's definitely not even close to being ready to merge yet.

[dunglas]

Hi @auroraeosrose, I've not written any RFC for now. I'll request access to do that.
I'll not have access to a Windows box until next week. I'll try to create missing pieces.

[dunglas]

@auroraeosrose, I've requested RFC karma to php-webmaster but got no answer. Can you unlock my account? Or should I post the proposal here?

[auroraeosrose]

Try mailing the php internals mailing list - also you just need wiki RFC access, so make sure you're asking for the right thing

[krakjoe]

Since this has merge conflicts and appears abandoned (because incomplete), and since we waited more than two years for an RFC to materialize, I'm closing this PR.

Please take this action as encouragement to create a clean PR, with satisfactory test coverage, a complete implementation, and start an RFC and accompanying discussion.

[dunglas]

@krakjoe, the code was working and was complete for PHP 5. Not sure if it works for PHP 7 but I can take a look.

I did not take the time to write an RFC because according to the discussion it was very unlikely that a hard dependency to ICU will be accepted. But if you think that it can/should be discussed, I can take some time to create it.

[staabm]

@dunglas maybe you should start the discussion again on the maillinglist first, before putting any more effort into the code or the RFC.

[krakjoe]

@dunglas Not intimately familiar with discussion you mentioned, but if that is your impression then it is probably correct.

If you want to push forward, I would do as @staabm suggested and try to restart the discussion, try to gather consensus before putting more effort into code.

The PR could not have been used in it's current form, and I'm trying to do housework .... but don't take my closing the PR as "end of discussion", it of course isn't that ... just keeping house ;)