Mapping and Variants

[Michael Everson]

Oh my gods.

Are we back HERE, at THIS decision?

On 10 Mar 2009, at 05:18, Michel SUIGNARD wrote:

> +1 on Mark's message concerning confusability.
> I also think that script mixing within a label should be a client
> application decision, not dictated by protocol.

This is madness. I said this first when Cary started talking to me  
about this, when he was editing a draft when WG2 was at Sophia  
Antipolis.

At that time, the idea that Cyrillic and Greek and Latin and Cherokee  
could be permitted to intermix within a script label horrifies me --  
unless the idea is to say "feck it, we don't care about being  
responsible for enforcing any security whatsoever".

Was a decision to ban script-mixing within a label made? Or was it not  
made? If it was not made, I am surprised, as I thought it had been. If  
it was made, why the hell is it being proposed to unmake it?

> For many scripts it is in fact innocuous and desirable to be mixed  
> with ASCII Latin (take Japanese and Romaji for example). In my days  
> at Microsoft, when helping exposing IDN in IE7, we went from a  
> fairly restrictive model to a much more open model concerning script  
> mixing, clearly banning the problematic cases (such as Greek,  
> Cyrillic, Latin mixing), but allowing for example most of the Asian  
> scripts to be mixed with Latin, and
> obviously allowing the mixed script scenarios required for Japanese  
> and Korean.

BUT WASN'T THIS ALREADY DECIDED?

> Finally the script property as exposed by Unicode cannot be used  
> without
> some careful analysis to determine 'single' script. There are values
> such as 'Common' and 'Inherited' which have to be allowed with most
> other script values.

Give examples when you make a statement like this please. Otherwise it  
is scare tactics.

> At the same time, 'Common' is a value that often means 'shared' by  
> at least two scripts, and it does not mean that all 'Common'  
> characters should be mixable with all scripts.

Ditto.

> In other words, it is way too complicated to be enshrined in a  
> protocol
> where stability is a feature.

You have to make arguments by reference to examples that specify your  
concern. Even I, Unicadette that I am, don't find your argument  
convincing.

> It is better done by registry policies and client application  
> awareness. And it needs to be adjusted as new threats emerge while  
> respecting real need for multi-script labels when no harm potential  
> exists.

Even mixing Burmese and Latin is dangerous because of Latin o and  
Burmese wa (looks like o).

You know, last night I sent an IM to Cary:

"I don't know why I remain on the IDNA list. Any time I say anything  
it gets ignored."

Cary responded that he felt that both statements were true for  
everyone on the list.

And these decisions will help run the internet....

Dejectedly,
Michael