From: David Starner (firstname.lastname@example.org)
Date: Sat Jan 17 2009 - 20:00:45 CST
On Fri, Jan 16, 2009 at 12:32 PM, Mark Davis <email@example.com> wrote:
> Identifiers don't just mean programmatic identifiers.
That and other short strings for entry into computer. Usernames,
passwords, URLs, etc.
> If you look at UTR#36
> and UTR#39, you see that they are concerned with security. One of the issues
> is visual confusability. Knowing that characters are archaic allows you to
> flag an occurrence as something that you may want to alert users about,
> especially if the characters are visually confusable with others. I should
> not have used the term 'exclude'.
I don't see where that's useful; given 3ƷʒȜȝ℥³③⑶⒊⓷❸➂➌３����� (the last
are the mathematical numbers in plane 1, since I don't know if they
came through correctly), when do you ever want to pull only Ȝȝ out for
> Secondly, there is no denying that some characters,
> languages, scripts *are* archaic -- otherwise I'd be composing this message
> in Anglo-Saxon. Not unless you want to be so PC as to deny reality.
No, but you also aren't composing this message in Clallam or Kawaiisu;
frankly, I find it vastly more likely that I'll find a message in my
email in Anglo-Saxon than in one of those languages, and more likely
than even such a vibrant language as Skolt Sami.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sat Jan 17 2009 - 20:02:48 CST