From: Doug Ewell (dewell@adelphia.net)
Date: Sat Feb 12 2005 - 00:51:54 CST
Kenneth Whistler <kenw at sybase dot com> wrote:
> People thrashing this topic around may be interested to know
> that the UTC, which met just this week, is considering the
> possibility of defining a "confusables mapping". That *would*
> be something aimed at being a comprehensive mechanism for
> dealing with the issue of confusable glyph shapes between
> scripts (or others, for that matter) that everyone is obsessing
> over regarding this spoofing issue. Or at least, if not
> really dealing with the issue, defining it much more
> precisely than tends to be done by people picking up the
> book and looking up random instances of lookalikes.
I am truly surprised that UTC would even attempt such a list. I can't
imagine where one would draw a line such that these two characters here
are similar enough to be considered spoof buddies, and those two over
there are not.
It is *at least* as slippery a slope as definitively mapping traditional
Chinese to simplified and vice versa (which is more than the existing
kSimplifiedVariant and kTraditionalVariant fields attempt to do).
Good luck.
-Doug Ewell
Fullerton, California
http://users.adelphia.net/~dewell/
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sat Feb 12 2005 - 00:53:36 CST