Re: Unicode and RFC 4690

From: Steve Summit (scs@eskimo.com)
Date: Wed Oct 04 2006 - 13:18:19 CST

Next message: Curtis Clark: "Re: Should names for sexes be included into CLDR?"

Previous message: Paul Hastings: "Re: "Visually approximate" conversion from unicode to Windows-1251 (or similar code page)"
In reply to: Kenneth Whistler: "Re: Unicode and RFC 4690"
Next in thread: Philippe Verdy: "Re: Unicode and RFC 4690"
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ] [ attachment ]
Mail actions: [ respond to this message ] [ mail a new topic ]

Ken Whistler wrote:
>> Are there any established, respected, comprehensive repositories of such
>> equivalences?
>
> http://www.unicode.org/reports/tr39/

Thank you! That's exactly what I had in mind. (And now I'm
surprised that RFC 4690 doesn't make more mention of this work.
It does cite TR39, but only in passing.)

> The issue of visual confusability in host names (and IRIs in
> general) relates even to such ASCII-derived confusable pairs
> as O/0 and I/l/1,

Indeed.

Next message: Curtis Clark: "Re: Should names for sexes be included into CLDR?"
Previous message: Paul Hastings: "Re: "Visually approximate" conversion from unicode to Windows-1251 (or similar code page)"
In reply to: Kenneth Whistler: "Re: Unicode and RFC 4690"
Next in thread: Philippe Verdy: "Re: Unicode and RFC 4690"
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ] [ attachment ]
Mail actions: [ respond to this message ] [ mail a new topic ]

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Wed Oct 04 2006 - 13:20:48 CST