gh-144133: Add a warning to encodings.punycode documentation#151812
Merged
Conversation
Documentation build overview
|
gpshead
approved these changes
Jun 20, 2026
StanFromIreland
added
needs backport to 3.13
|
Thanks @StanFromIreland for the PR 🌮🎉.. I'm working now to backport this PR to: 3.13, 3.14, 3.15. |
|
GH-151922 is a backport of this pull request to the 3.15 branch. |
bedevere-app
Bot
removed
the
needs backport to 3.15
|
GH-151923 is a backport of this pull request to the 3.14 branch. |
|
GH-151924 is a backport of this pull request to the 3.13 branch. |
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
2 participants
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
The RFC's reference algorithms have quadratic complexity, as it was designed only designed to handle the intended (limited) input, as described in Section 6.4. While some implementations have avoided this general complexity by introducing caps (e.g. ICU), that's a little too drastic for us to do. Rewriting the algorithms is complicated, and people have tried before, however they capitulate as in practice, with appropriate limits (the DNS label length limit is 63), this should not cause issues.
CC @kjd @malemburg