add cc

Won't remove checks for hostname correctness. This would result in unwanted side
effects.

OOo is a multiplatform office suite. Those hostnames with special characters are
not conform with RFC 952. Nevertheless it's common pratise on Windows to use
underscores in hostnames, so we support them for pragmatic reasons.

But - when you specify a computer name with non-standard characters Windows
warns you that other computers might not find your host when using non-standard
characters. At least when you try to access to host from Linux you'll have a
problem.

The warning Window XP displays has a good reason

You might state that other progs like MS Office don't care such hostnames.

But...
- is MS Office also running on Linux f.e. ? - No
- is it a good idea to give computers non RFC conform hostnames ? - No

Or look at this issue #49889 (Crash is bad therefor it's still open)

Same stuff..... for me it means "You want a problem ? O.K. you'll get one".

Closed.

RFC952 not only is 22 years old, but it applies to HOSTS file.

I think that RFC 2181 should be applied in our case:
"The DNS itself places only one restriction on the particular labels
   that can be used to identify resource records.  That one restriction
   relates to the length of the label and the full name.  The length of
   any one label is limited to between 1 and 63 octets.  A full domain
   name is limited to 255 octets (including the separators).  "
"... any binary string whatever can be used as the label of any
   resource record"

In addition to that Vista does not warn you when using national characters for 
host name, but it encourages users to do so - it offers host name constructed 
like "username-PC", where "username" is very likely to be non-English for non-
English versions of Vista AND "PC" is replaced by language-specific equivalent 
(which is "ПК" in Russian).
This means that with proliferation of Vista we are going to get more and more 
cases of "I d-click the file in UNC folder, Office starts, but without file".

So let's be pragmatic and remove unnecessary and redundant checks, preventing 
pain for our users and further damage to our reputation.

I mean, you do not win hearts by being fundamentalistic and citing verces from 
RFCs. And we _do_ need all hearts that we can get.

Please reconsider WONTFIX and at least allow all chars >32.

I feel RFC 1178 "Choosing a name for your computer" is a good reference.

RFC 2181 is about domain names not hostnames. Anyhow - it's not about RFCs we
are talking but that it is never a good idea to chose a computer name that
consists of anything other than alphanumeric plus hyphens.

From a users point of view RFCs are not of interest. Users do not want to know
why things work or not - they should work - period. So far you're right.

That Vista creates such computer names is one thing that enforces users to work
in  a Vista only network along with f.e. NT-Domain names are case sensitive
whereas in XP and previous Windows they where case insensitive. I don't want to
comment on this.

As I said the check for "correct" hostnames is done in a platform independent
part of the code (tools/source/fsys/urlobj.cxx). Changing the defined behaviour
would result in side effects - a change would come along with a high risk and
effort to ensure nothing is broken.

If there's really an admin that allows or creates "non-standard" hostnames for
computers in the network...fire the admin. 
F.e. you'll never get those hostnames integrated into a heterogene network.

So maybe we're talking about a home network or SO network. Yes, here you might
be right (especially for Vista only networks) as long as OOo is the only
Non-Microsoft software used for network access.

So what I want to say is: Do you think that there's a significant number of
users that actually share their documents over a network and use localized
computer names and never got a problem except when using OOo ?

Or - would you chose a computer name with special characters in your own network
? Where are the hearts we can win by fixing this ?

So far I feel the risk and the effort are not worth the outcome - that's the
point why I said "WONTFIX". It's always a question of priority and so far there
are more important things to do.

As part-time admin for several small companies I have seen a number of cases 
where computer had name in Russian (starting from Win98).
Those are the companies where deploying OO would be natural, yet our 
limitation would hit me hard because those companies relay on peer-to-peer 
file sharing (and they will fire me for deploying OO, not the other guy for 
being liberal with machine names).

Vista's behavior facilitates using non-Latin chars in machine names, so we 
will have more and more cases like this.

I understand "risky" part, but we have 6 months of beta to discover potential 
problems and those problems will hit only people with problematic names. So 
they have nothing to loose and a lot to gain.

Please see if we can use this unique opportunity to make necessary change.
Thanks a lot.

Hennes, Thorsten, Mathias 
once again I would like you to reconsider WONTFIX for this issue.
Even Linux recognises the need to access hosts with non-latin chars in names - 
you can put such entry in  LMHOSTS file and BIND resolves FQDNs with national 
characters in them.