Re: diacritic spoofing (Re: orthographies)

From: Michael Everson (
Date: Mon Feb 21 2005 - 10:40:19 CST

  • Next message: Erik van der Poel: "Re: [idn] IDN spoofing"

    At 06:08 -0800 2005-02-21, Patrick Andries wrote:

    >Similar-looking (non compatibility) diacritics can also have
    >different behaviours (for example in their respective stacking

    Position and size may also be a factor.

    >I see this as a legitimate reason to desunify similar-looking
    >diacritics used by different scripts.

    There are also other reasons, and your position, that every dot above
    is pre-unified with U+0307, well... it differs from my position. My
    position is that for any new script, all of its characters should be
    considered unique to it unless there is compelling reason *to* unify.

    (Yes, this is about N'Ko combining diacritics, where position and
    size and interaction with one another are all factors in their having
    been proposed for encoding as script-specific diacritics.)

    >Otherwise, I guess script-specific diacritics that look and
    >behave(*) like generic diacritics may well embody some spoofing

    That's not a reason not to encode script-specific diacritics.

    Michael Everson * * Everson Typography *  *

    This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Mon Feb 21 2005 - 10:44:51 CST