On Wed, Feb 06, 2002 at 07:12:19PM +0100, Lars Kristan wrote: > Well, I was tempted to join the discussion for a while now, but one of the > things that stopped me was that I didn't quite understand why it was so > focused on the bidi stuff.
Because it can have a dramatic effect, whereas changing look-alikes has no effect on the displayed text. > Yes, it's a fraud. And I want to thank John for pointing that out. But we're > making it a hell of a lot easier now. In ASCII, all one could try was > www.examp1e.com and a couple of other tricks, but it was maybe 10 tricks in > ASCII, some more in case of Latin 1. How many are there with Unicode? Ummmm, > a million? How often does it matter? I can see registars not registering stuff that was obviously an attempt to defraud, but you won't get there if you type it in yourself. It's easier for someone to set up a forged Microsoft link, but it's easy to check that. Rather than everyone being digitally signed, just checking if it's multiscript and pop up a warning will catch most of the cases. You could colorcode the major scripts with confusables . . . -- David Starner - [EMAIL PROTECTED], dvdeug/jabber.com (Jabber) Pointless website: http://dvdeug.dhis.org What we've got is a blue-light special on truth. It's the hottest thing with the youth. -- Information Society, "Peace and Love, Inc."
