> Il 30/01/2023 08:31 CET John C Klensin <john-i...@jck.com> ha scritto:
>
> However, I think Rich is basically correct and that this
> discussion is not going to get us or the WG anywhere. FWIW,
> when Patrik, Vint, or I complain about emoji in identifiers, we
> are actually not very concerned about a single hot beverage icon
> but about things closer to Patrik's "rainbow flag", the
> difference between three dogs and a three-headed dog, and
> variations on the "vomiting cowboy" [1] theme that are actually
> possible given the use of ZWJ. The problem there is whether one
> can draw an appropriate line... but neither Unicode nor UTS#46
> even attempt to draw it.
FWIW, I too am worried about the possible backlash of allowing emojis and other
characters that can be hard for the user to tell from each other, thus leading
to phishing. We already had quite a hard time in convincing browsers that they
should actually show U-labels and not A-labels to the user, as they were
flooded by the complaints of Latin-script-only people that couldn't even
imagine that you could write some Latin-script words in very similar Cyrillic
characters. The more this generates security issues, the more likely it is that
we will see people arguing to restrict the usability of U-labels altogether. So
I'd rather stick to IDNA2008, as that is the only set that should be guaranteed
to work everywhere. Anyway, the text in the draft seems fine to me.
--
Vittorio Bertola | Head of Policy & Innovation, Open-Xchange
vittorio.bert...@open-xchange.com
Office @ Via Treviso 12, 10144 Torino, Italy
_______________________________________________
Uta mailing list
Uta@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/uta
