From: Doug Ewell (dewell@roadrunner.com)
Date: Thu Dec 06 2007 - 14:34:30 CST
William J Poser <wjposer at ldc dot upenn dot edu> wrote:
> But then even better would be to Unicode-ify rot13 so that it affects
> non-ASCII characters. For example, restricting ourselves to the BMP,
> we could have rot7FFF, which would produce meaningless strings of CJK
> characters from (extended) Latin text.
(This is not quite the same thing, but you might find it interesting
nonetheless:
http://www.mindspring.com/~markus.scherer/unicode/base16k.html )
The elegance of rot13 for ASCII text is that it maps the two sets of
letters (capital and small) to themselves, so that natural-language text
ends up looking like (inscrutable) natural-language text rather than
binary junk. None of the other schemes such as rot47 do this.
Otto is on the right track: to make rot13 truly work for other scripts,
you would have to define it individually for each script. You might try
rot24 for the Cyrillic sub-block from U+0400 to U+045F, for example.
But this doesn't even work for Greek (unassigned code points in the
middle of the rotated block) or Hebrew (rotated block not a multiple of
2, so not self-inverting).
-- Doug Ewell * Fullerton, California, USA * RFC 4645 * UTN #14 http://home.roadrunner.com/~dewell http://www1.ietf.org/html.charters/ltru-charter.html http://www.alvestrand.no/mailman/listinfo/ietf-languages ˆ
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Thu Dec 06 2007 - 14:36:05 CST