Why Nothing Ever Goes Away (was: Re: Acquiring DIS 10646)

On 10/5/2015 8:24 AM, Doug Ewell wrote: I too am puzzled as to what DIS 10646 and C1 control pictures have to do with each other. What an *excellent* cue to start a riff on arcane Unicode history! First, let me explain what I think Sean Leonard's concern here is. 1. On 10/4/2015 5:30 AM,

Re: Deleting Lone Surrogates

On Mon, 5 Oct 2015 16:51:25 +0200 Philippe Verdy wrote: > 2015-10-05 13:50 GMT+02:00 Martin J. Dürst : > > > In an editing tool (of which an editing interface is a part of), a > > lone surrogate should just be removed! Apparently, that's what > >

Proposals for Arabic honorifics

Hi all, We are considering writing a proposal for Arabic honorifics which are missing from Unicode. There are already a few in there, notably U+FDFA and U+FDFB. There are two existing proposals, L2/14-147 and L2/14-152, which each propose additions. L2/14-147 proposes seventeen new

Re: Unicode in passwords

NFC is probably not the best choice for passwords. It should probably be NFKC Look also in the recent proposed update for UAX #31, and consider the special case where an application does not want passwords to be case-significant, but accepts using something else than just ASCII letters: it will

Re: Unicode in passwords

Also some people may want to use now emojis within their passwords or pass phrases (they are now very common on most smartphones and layouts for tactile screens or in instant messaging applications used on desktops, using mouse clicks or taps for selecting them). But I would not recommend them for

Re: Why Nothing Ever Goes Away (was: Re: Acquiring DIS 10646)

Also the aliases for C1 controls were formally registered in 1983 only for the two ranges U+0084..U+0097 and U+009B..U+009F for ISO 6429. So the abbreviation (and names) aliases given to: - U+0082 (BPH =BREAK PERMITTED HERE), - U+0083 (NBH = NO BREAK HERE), - U+0098 (SOS=START OF STRING) and -

Re: Scope of Unicode Character Properties (was: Re: Deleting Lone Surrogates)

2015-10-05 19:11 GMT+02:00 Ken Whistler : > However, it would be reasonable (and permitted) for an API to actually > report a default value for a surrogate code point (i.e., treating it more > or less like the reserved code point U+50005 that Marcus mentioned). > Unassigned

Re: Why Nothing Ever Goes Away (was: Re: Acquiring DIS 10646)

2015-10-05 21:32 GMT+02:00 Ken Whistler : > > On 10/5/2015 8:24 AM, Doug Ewell wrote: > >> I too am puzzled as to what DIS 10646 and C1 control pictures have to do >> with each other. >> >> > What an *excellent* cue to start a riff on arcane Unicode history! > > First, let me

Re: Unicode in passwords

On 2015/10/01 13:11, Jonathan Rosenne wrote: For languages such as Java, passwords should be handled as byte arrays rather than strings. This may make it difficult to apply normalization. Well, they should be received from the user interface as strings, then normalized, then converted to

Re: Unicode in passwords

Some additional concerns: - Input methods for Chinese, Japanese,... need visual feedback to check that the correct Han character was selected. That may show (some parts of) the password to bystanders. - Length limitations of 8 bytes are few and far between these days, but they still exist.

Re: Unicode in passwords

Dear John, FYI, IETF is working on this issue. See Internet Draft https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-precis-saslprepbis-17 based on PRECIS framework RFC 7564 https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc7564 Best, > 2015/10/01 1:33、John O'Conner のメール： > > I'm researching

Re: Deleting Lone Surrogates

On 2015/10/05 04:30, Asmus Freytag (t) wrote: On 10/4/2015 6:02 AM, Richard Wordingham wrote: In the absence of a specific tailoring, is the combination of a lone surrogate and a combining mark a user-perceived character? Does a lone surrogate constitute a user-perceived character? In an

Re: Unicode in passwords

On 5 Oct 2015, at 8:14, Shriramana Sharma wrote: I recently came across this bug report where a filesystem encrypted with a Cyrillic script password could not be decrypted at boot time: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=681250 And? From what I understand, this is related to the

Re: Unicode in passwords

I recently came across this bug report where a filesystem encrypted with a Cyrillic script password could not be decrypted at boot time: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=681250 -- Shriramana Sharma ஶ்ரீரமணஶர்மா श्रीरमणशर्मा

Re: Unicode in passwords

I had hoped it would be obvious my reply was not intended to the "best practices" part of the OP, but to the "potential problems" part of it... In any case, I have nothing further to say on this topic. -- Shriramana Sharma ஶ்ரீரமணஶர்மா श्रीरमणशर्मा

Re: Deleting Lone Surrogates

Not silently ! Even if this removal is required to go on editing, this must be notified to the user as it may occur in unedited parts of the file (and it may be the sign that the document is not fully plain text, so the user should not save the edited file) If this is caused by a quirk in the user

Re: Unicode in passwords

On 5 Oct 2015, at 9:42, Shriramana Sharma wrote: On 10/5/15, Marc Blanchet wrote: On 5 Oct 2015, at 8:14, Shriramana Sharma wrote: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=681250 And? Well the OP did say: I'm researching potential problems and best

Re: Unicode in passwords

On 5 Oct 2015, at 10:47, Shriramana Sharma wrote: I had hoped it would be obvious my reply was not intended to the "best practices" part of the OP, but to the "potential problems" part of it... sure. my comment was also just informative, not targeting to your comment, but targeting the fact

Re: Unicode in passwords

On 10/5/15, Marc Blanchet wrote: > On 5 Oct 2015, at 8:14, Shriramana Sharma wrote: > >> https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=681250 > > And? Well the OP did say: I'm researching potential problems and best practices for password policies that allow

Re: Unicode in passwords

On Wed, Sep 30, 2015 at 04:15:30PM -0700, Clark S. Cox III wrote a message of 73 lines which said: > You really wouldn’t want “Schlüssel” and “Schlüssel” being different > passwords, would you? (assuming that my mail client and/or OS is not > interfering, the first is

Re: Deleting Lone Surrogates

On 10/5/2015 7:51 AM, Philippe Verdy wrote: Not silently ! Even if this removal is required to go on editing, this must be notified to the user as it may occur in unedited parts of the file (and it may be the sign that the document is not fully plain text, so the user should not save the

Scope of Unicode Character Properties (was: Re: Deleting Lone Surrogates)

Section 3.5, Properties, of the standard attempts to address this. "Code point properties" are properties of the code points, per se, and clearly do have all code points (U+..U+10) in their scope. An example is the Surrogate code point property, which wouldn't make much sense if it

Re: Acquiring DIS 10646

I too am puzzled as to what DIS 10646 and C1 control pictures have to do with each other. -- Doug Ewell | http://ewellic.org | Thornton, CO 