From: Doug Ewell (email@example.com)
Date: Sat Feb 12 2005 - 00:51:54 CST
Kenneth Whistler <kenw at sybase dot com> wrote:
> People thrashing this topic around may be interested to know
> that the UTC, which met just this week, is considering the
> possibility of defining a "confusables mapping". That *would*
> be something aimed at being a comprehensive mechanism for
> dealing with the issue of confusable glyph shapes between
> scripts (or others, for that matter) that everyone is obsessing
> over regarding this spoofing issue. Or at least, if not
> really dealing with the issue, defining it much more
> precisely than tends to be done by people picking up the
> book and looking up random instances of lookalikes.
I am truly surprised that UTC would even attempt such a list. I can't
imagine where one would draw a line such that these two characters here
are similar enough to be considered spoof buddies, and those two over
there are not.
It is *at least* as slippery a slope as definitively mapping traditional
Chinese to simplified and vice versa (which is more than the existing
kSimplifiedVariant and kTraditionalVariant fields attempt to do).
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sat Feb 12 2005 - 00:53:36 CST