Re: [gnso-idng] 3rd Draft on Sting Similarity

[Eric Brunner-Williams <ebw@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

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
   publication [Unicode-UTR36].

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
doing cameos.

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.

Eric