From: Doug Ewell (firstname.lastname@example.org)
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?
> 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
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.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sat Feb 19 2005 - 17:45:26 CST