Microsoft applications use both of these to try to determine if a font
is likely to support a certain range. Some fonts do not properly set
those values but most do, especially common ones.
Chris Pratley
Group Program Manager
Microsoft Office
Sent with OfficeXP on WindowsXP
-Original
At 00:19 2/8/2002, Chris Pratley wrote:
Microsoft applications use both of these to try to determine if a font
is likely to support a certain range. Some fonts do not properly set
those values but most do, especially common ones.
Chris, how do you define a 'properly set' Unicode range in the
Elliotte Rusty Harold wrote:
The problem is that all of these or any other client-based solution you
come up with is only going to be implemented in some clients. Many, and
at least initially most, users are not going to have any such
protections. This needs to be cut off at the protocol
At 17:42 -0500 2002-02-07, John Cowan wrote:
The only widely-deployed alternative approach I know of is
ETSI GSM 03.38 (used in mobile telephony),
A truly bizarre character set: it supports English, French,
mainland Scandinavian languages, Italian, Spanish with Graves, and
GREEK SHOUTING.
On
At 15:53 -0500 2002-02-07, Elliotte Rusty Harold wrote:
For text files, probably not. But for the domain name system the
world very well might. Indeed, maybe it should unless this problem
can be dealt with. I suspect it can be dealt with by prohibiting
script mixing in domain names (e.g. each
-Original Message-
From: Tom Gewecke [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Thursday, February 07, 2002 6:20 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Unicode and Security: Domain Names
I note that companies like Verisign already claim to offer
domain names
in dozens of languages and
On 02/08/2002 03:01:31 AM John Hudson wrote:
Chris, how do you define a 'properly set' Unicode range in the OS/2
table?
Correct codepage support is self-evident: a font should indicate codepage
support only if it's cmap table includes *all* the characters in that
codepage.
Well, there are
In a message dated 2002-02-08 8:23:22 Pacific Standard Time,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Does anyone know anything about RACE encoding and its properties?
I wrote an article on IDNS in December of 2000 which discusses the
approaches which were being debated at that time, including RACE. RACE
ok. Let me ask again since my origional question is not good enough
Do font vendor set teh the ulCharRange bits in OS/2range ?Does Application or OS depend on ulCharRange for what purpose?
Ken Lunde wrote:
Frank,
You wrote:
Ken:
Do you know any Adobe software depend on that?
Hi Elliotte and others,
ERH Does anybody really need mixed Latin and Greek domain names?
This is the wrong approach altogether. If we want to be universal, we
can't exclude cases on a heuristic basis of no one is probably going
to need this.
BTW People will certainly want mixed Han and Latin
Hello Asmus and others,
I'm not sure Unicode can be fixed at this point. The flaws may be
too deeply embedded. The real solution may involve waiting until
companies and people start losing significant amounts of money as a
result of the flaws in Unicode, and then throwing it away and
replacing
At 15:53 -0500 2002-02-07, Elliotte Rusty Harold wrote:
For text files, probably not. But for the domain name system the world
very well might. Indeed, maybe it should unless this problem can be dealt
with. I suspect it can be dealt with by prohibiting script mixing in
domain names (e.g. each
At 06:18 PM 2/8/02 +0100, Philipp Reichmuth wrote:
Oh, it is very well possible to design a character set that supports
all of Latin, Cyrillic and Greek without being susceptible to this
problem beyond the familiar 1-l-|, 0-O dimension. The main premise is
to encode glyphs instead of characters
Moreover, the IDN WG documents are in final call, so if you have comments to
make on them, now is the time. Visit http://www.i-d-n.net/ and sub-scribe
(with a hyphen here so that listar does not interpret my post as a command!)
to their mailing list (and read their archives) before doing so.
The
I want to review these documents, but since time is short, maybe someone
can answer my question...
Are the actual domain names as stored in the DB going to be canonical
normalized Unicode strings? It seems this would go a long way towards
preventing spoofing ... no one would be allowed to
Moreover, the IDN WG documents are in final call, so if you have comments to
make on them, now is the time. Visit http://www.i-d-n.net/ and subscribe to
their mailing list (and read their archives) before doing so.
The documents in last call are:
1. Internationalizing Domain Names in
First European IUC in two years!
Twenty-first International Unicode Conference (IUC21)
Unicode, Localization and the Web: The Global Connection
http://www.unicode.org/iuc/iuc21
May 14-17, 2002
Dublin,
Are the actual domain names as stored in the DB going to be canonical
normalized Unicode strings? It seems this would go a long way towards
preventing spoofing ...
Names will be stored according to a normalization called Nameprep. Read the
Stringprep (general framework) and Nameprep (IDN
The recent discussions of this list about Internet domain name
spoofing through substitution of Unicode characters that have similar,
or identical, glyphs is an issue that has recently appeared in print
in a prominent journal:
@String{j-CACM = Communications of the ACM}
Asmus is absolutely right about Latin, Greek and Cyrillic. And the
response that Unicode should be encoding glyphs instead of characters
is, in the least, misguided. No character encodings have ever been
predicated on that. For an example of how many glyphs are available
just for the letter A,
I have here a book with separate English, Hebrew and Arabic indexes. In
the English index, the indexed words appear (as is conventional)
with a page number after (that is, to the right) of them. In
the Hebrew index, the words likewise appear with a page number
after (that is, to the left) of
21 matches
Mail list logo
