IAB Statement on Identifiers and Unicode 7.0.0

Andrew Sullivan ajs at anvilwalrusden.com
Wed Jan 28 23:42:24 CET 2015

On Wed, Jan 28, 2015 at 10:36:30PM +0000, Shawn Steele wrote:
> I'm more than a little confused why we're picking on this character rather than other more likely characters.  I'm not at all sure why "same script" matters (except that it's a little bit easier to question mixed script stuff), and don't understand the bar for "visually the same within the same script".

It's not "a little bit easier" from the point of view of writing an
algorithm: you check the property.  In one case, you can detect a
difference, and in the other you can't possibly.  (And I'm not
"picking on this character", as I've said repeatedly, as the IAB
statement is at pains to point out and as others have also said
repeatedly.  It is extremely hard to have a conversation when one
interlocutor keeps misstating one's utterances.  Please stop.)

> This character is getting picked on, but l & I are dismissed, though
  it was pointed out that some fonts render them identicaIIy.  So when
  are two characters "visually the same"?

l and I _can_ be rendered differently in the same font.  If there was
any expectation at all that the characters we are talking about would
normally be rendered with any detectable difference in the same font,
I have not seen anyone advancing that claim.  This is _always_ a
problem with things that people have to see, and nobody is trying to
deny that.  But if you cannot see how these cases are meaningfully
different, I can only conclude that I am the wrong person to try to
explain it.

Best regards,


Andrew Sullivan
ajs at anvilwalrusden.com

More information about the Idna-update mailing list