From: Philippe Verdy (email@example.com)
Date: Fri Sep 17 2004 - 10:22:55 CDT
From: "Doug Ewell" <firstname.lastname@example.org>
> In the case of INVISIBLE LETTER, it seems likely -- based on the
> comments of experts -- that the benefits outweigh the disadvantages.
> But new control characters (and quasi-controls like IL) have tended to
> cause more problems and confusion for Unicode in the past than new
> graphically visible characters. The possibility of misuse has to be
> evaluated, and the rules do have to be stated clearly. Combinations
> involving IL plus SPACING ACCENT, or IL plus ZW(N)J, or whatever, should
> be part of the rules; what effect should such combinations have, and are
> they discouraged? For IL, that is probably good enough.
The most important misuse of IL could be avoided by saying in the standard
that a renderer should make this character visible if it is not followed by
a combining character that it expects. This would avoid possible spoofing by
including it within some critical texts such as people and company names in
signatures. A candidate rendering would be the dotted circle and square as
seen in the proposal, or a dotted square with "IL" letters inside. This
glyph would appear even if "visible controls" editing mode is not enabled.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Fri Sep 17 2004 - 10:24:51 CDT