Erik van der Poel <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > I don't really know whether this kind of change is realistic. > > > > I think not. > > Would you care to elaborate?
Partly because of the ransom-note problem, partly because of the deployment problem (new ACE prefix), but even if we dismiss those, there's still the problem of characters that are supposed to use different glyphs that are only slightly different and therefore easily confusable. So we'd be paying a fairly high cost (changing Nameprep) in return for a disappointing benefit. > don't you think it's at least a little unfortunate that (a) Unicode > chose to include duplicates and/or (b) nameprep chose to use Unicode? See Doug Ewell's post about how there's no good place to draw the line for what counts as a "duplicate". I don't think a different string preparation or a different universal character set could have made the situation a lot better in this regard; the scripts and characters themselves (independent of any encoding) have too many shades of similarity and distinction. We can't limit ourselves to a set of clearly distinguishable characters (some registries can, but a browser can't), so we need to resort to other approaches, like looking at the combinations of characters. AMC
