From: Doug Ewell (dewell@adelphia.net)
Date: Sat Feb 19 2005 - 17:42:17 CST
Erik van der Poel <erik at vanderpoel dot org> wrote:
>> This is one of those problems for which
>> a partial solution simply isn't good enough.
>
> Maybe this is one of those problems for which *no* solution simply
> isn't good enough?
Maybe.
> I mean, I'll start with the Arial font found in Windows. Isn't it true
> that its cmap maps some characters to the same glyph index?
I wouldn't know. Maybe one of the font guys does.
> ... I'll point out that Michel Suignard himself
> (long-time Unicoder) already admitted that:
> ...
> # Unicode contains many latin homographs in the Cyrillic block exactly
> # for that reason, to avoid mixing the two scripts in a single word...
> ...
> Am I now going to see some senior Unicoders try to backpedal on these
> comments? :-)
I doubt it. Having Cyrillic text be all-Cyrillic and not
Cyrillic-mixed-with-Latin is a good thing. Being able to surf to the
Web site you expect and not to some spoofed variant is also a good
thing. Reconciling these two is not necessarily an easy thing.
> Well, PayPal will notice that some or all of them are just there to
> start this very discussion, and hopefully won't sue those poor
> engineers...
Some PayPal people (say that five times fast) will probably resent the
fact that PayPal was chosen as an example. Others, probably more
astute, will see it as a testament to their high profile and success.
> Finally, am I answering my own questions? :-)
Maybe, but at least they're being asked.
-Doug Ewell
Fullerton, California
http://users.adelphia.net/~dewell/
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sat Feb 19 2005 - 17:45:26 CST