Re: Homograph and terminology in generel --- was: [gnso-idn-wg] One comment on techno-policy details

[Cary Karp <ck@xxxxxxxxxx>]

Two characters from different scripts that cannot be distinguished from
each other visually are properly termed "homoglyphs". This is also in
the Wikipedia, and the more colloquial term used in its stead is
"look-alike characters". The designation "homograph" is entirely
incorrect as it has been used in the discussion of IDN.

There is a further term used to designate strings of homoglyphs --
"apsyeoxic" -- also in the Wikipedia.

/Cary

> Just a reminder to everyone. We need to be careful about use and
> choice of terminology.
>  
> For example, homograph is defined as 
> 
> "A word with the same spelling as another or others, but with a
> different meaning and origin and sometimes a different
> pronunciation." 
> 
> A quick Google search gives the following examples: 
> 
> 1) the noun conduct and the verb conduct are homographs
> 
> 2) Many people have difficulty when trying to parallel park. It was a
> beautiful day for a walk in the park. "park" being homographs.
> 
> 
> Note, this is not the same as typographic similarities.
>  
> Lets make sure we use the wiki so that we are all on the same page
> and know what we talk about.