Asmus Freytag wrote about security issues.
This is interesting reading and I have learned a lot from the post about
various security issues.
Whilst the post is in this thread and follows from a post in this thread, the
topic has seemed to moved to the Custom characters thread.
I note that what you write about seems to me that it would not apply to my
suggestion in my original post: is that correct?
http://www.unicode.org/mail-arch/unicode-ml/y2015-m05/0218.html
Also the following two posts.
http://www.unicode.org/mail-arch/unicode-ml/y2015-m06/0009.html
http://www.unicode.org/mail-arch/unicode-ml/y2015-m06/0027.html
Whilst the ideas raised by Chris are interesting, they do seem to be distinctly
different from what I suggested.
So, for clarity, do you regard my suggested format as having any security
issues, and if so, what please?
I know that some people have opined that my suggested format is out of scope
for Unicode, yet the scope of Unicode is what the Unicode Technical Committee
decides is the scope of Unicode, and my suggested format does provide a way to
include custom glyphs within a Unicode plain text document by using the new
base character followed by tag characters method.
William Overington
5 June 2015
