Data on confusables

[Gervase Markham]

On 30/07/09 11:32, Vint Cerf wrote:
> the present formulation deliberately built up its PVALID forms by
> inclusion rather than exclusion precisely to try to limit which
> characters are permitted to be used.
>
> In particular, IDNA2008 tried to achieve this by invoking Unicode
> properties and inventing formulae to apply them.
>
> Excluded from PVALID are a range of character classes including
> punctuation and mathematical symbols, but the WG consensus is that no
> set of rules will absolutely eliminate all forms of confusion or
> deliberate spoofing. Rather, a combination of character limitations and
> registry (zone administrator) filtering seems to be needed and even then
> one can anticipate weak filtering out of negligence or ignorance.

Yes, I know and agree with all of that. But Mark is making a stronger 
point; he is saying that it will hardly help at all. Of course, this is 
a subjective judgment, so we could argue back and forth all day. But it 
does seem to me that eliminating protocol-alikes in a way which can now 
be consistent across implementations is a significant step forward.

Gerv