Erik van der Poel <erik at vanderpoel dot org> wrote: >> This is one of those problems for which >> a partial solution simply isn't good enough. > > Maybe this is one of those problems for which *no* solution simply > isn't good enough?
Maybe. > I mean, I'll start with the Arial font found in Windows. Isn't it true > that its cmap maps some characters to the same glyph index? I wouldn't know. Maybe one of the font guys does. > ... I'll point out that Michel Suignard himself > (long-time Unicoder) already admitted that: > ... > # Unicode contains many latin homographs in the Cyrillic block exactly > # for that reason, to avoid mixing the two scripts in a single word... > ... > Am I now going to see some senior Unicoders try to backpedal on these > comments? :-) I doubt it. Having Cyrillic text be all-Cyrillic and not Cyrillic-mixed-with-Latin is a good thing. Being able to surf to the Web site you expect and not to some spoofed variant is also a good thing. Reconciling these two is not necessarily an easy thing. > Well, PayPal will notice that some or all of them are just there to > start this very discussion, and hopefully won't sue those poor > engineers... Some PayPal people (say that five times fast) will probably resent the fact that PayPal was chosen as an example. Others, probably more astute, will see it as a testament to their high profile and success. > Finally, am I answering my own questions? :-) Maybe, but at least they're being asked. -Doug Ewell Fullerton, California http://users.adelphia.net/~dewell/
