From: Doug Ewell (firstname.lastname@example.org)
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
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