On 10/04/2025 19:29, Asmus Freytag via Unicode wrote: > On 4/10/2025 4:46 AM, ((Nitai Sasson)) via Unicode wrote: > > I honestly cannot think of any issue or potential pitfall with this > > solution. > That in itself is a problem.
I'm open minded. Show me I'm wrong - I've been convinced by good arguments multiple times in this chain already. On 10/04/2025 14:46, Marius Spix via Unicode wrote: > I'm afraid, that this would open Pandora's box for more homograph attacks. ∃ > (U+2203) is already a confusable for E in a BiDi context. But this would add > more characters like ꟼ (U+A7FC), ⅃ (U+2143) or ↋ (U+218B) to the list. Letters are strongly directional, so under normal conditions would not be affected by <BDM>. In other words, L<BDM> would always be rendered as L, never ⅃. Except... I actually have had some thoughts about potential exceptions to this, but I'm not sure if right now is the best time to get into the details of what I had thought of. I first wanted to get feedback for the intended use case of the proposed <BDM>. Of course, *today* within LTR text you can insert: <RLI>)<PDI> and end up with a homograph of (. Here it is: ")". This would not create a brand new issue, this is merely an inevitable consequence of bidi text. I also pretty much agree with Joao on this: On 10/04/2025 19:45, Joao S. O. Bueno via Unicode <[email protected]> wrote: > Other security measures have to be taken for this kind of attack - > and having more ways to spell out a forward arrow is certainly not > changing the current landscape where an homograph, or close homograph > for that matter, to every ascii letter can probably be found nearly 20 > times in the unicode charset.
