* Pete Resnick wrote: > [...] Even so, implementations that are sensitive to > the advice given in this specification (to be careful to only allow > characters whose implications they actually understand and, > especially for the LetterDigit case, characters that actually are > used to write relevant human languages) are unlikely to run into > significant problems as a consequence of these issues or potential > changes.
You did not say which document this is for, but if it actually gives the advice above, then it probably should be abandoned. As an example, even though I had seen any number of mispellings of my name, it was not until a Google employee trying to recruit me kept addressing me as "Bjoem" that I realised "rn" can be confused with "m" a couple of years ago. So, the text above pretty much comes across as mockery, there is no way for me to fully understand the implications of dozens of characters, and the Unicode range spans across over a million of characters. I think it is not appropriate for the specification to try and shift responsibility to implementers in this extreme fashion. Might as well suggest that stereo- typical monolingual citizens of the United States reject non-ASCII input and even then still blame them for confusions like "rn" versus "m". -- Björn Höhrmann · mailto:[email protected] · http://bjoern.hoehrmann.de D-10243 Berlin · PGP Pub. KeyID: 0xA4357E78 · http://www.bjoernsworld.de Available for hire in Berlin (early 2015) · http://www.websitedev.de/ _______________________________________________ precis mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/precis
