Re: [gnso-idng] 3rd Draft on Sting Similarity
- To: "Gomes, Chuck" <cgomes@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Subject: Re: [gnso-idng] 3rd Draft on Sting Similarity
- From: Eric Brunner-Williams <ebw@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Tue, 15 Dec 2009 14:19:14 -0500
On 12/15/09 9:23 AM, Gomes, Chuck wrote:
> I disagree with you that we all agree that visual similarity as the lowest
> common denominator. ...
We have, in John Klensin's draft-ietf-idnabis-defs-08.txt, this:
4.3. Visually Similar Characters
To help prevent confusion between characters that are visually
similar, it is suggested that implementations provide visual
indications where a domain name contains multiple scripts, especially
when the scripts contain characters that are easily confused
visually, such as an omicron in Greek mixed with Latin text. Such
mechanisms can also be used to show when a name contains a mixture of
simplified and traditional Chinese characters, or to distinguish zero
and one from upper-case "O" and lower-case "L". DNS zone
administrators may impose restrictions (subject to the limitations
identified elsewhere in these documents) that try to minimize
characters that have similar appearance or similar interpretations.
It is worth noting that there are no comprehensive technical
solutions to the problems of confusable characters. One can reduce
the extent of the problems in various ways, but probably never
eliminate it. Some specific suggestions about identification and
handling of confusable characters appear in a Unicode Consortium
I can't come up with anything from the IDNAbis work that met consensus.
We're still arguing, of course. Steve Crocker and Pat Kane are now
Related, we're arguing in DNSEXT, over if, and how to alias.
I don't know what is "more common" than the glyph similarity problem.