>From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>The article http://www.counterpane.com/crypto-gram-0007.html#9
>however is clearly a "Chicken little, 'the sky is falling'" argument
>and should be addressed as such. Let me quote the final statement in
>that section as it conveys the general tone of the section:
>
>
hi,
really don't know if this is very helpful but what if you create modules
for uucode when they first install otherwise it is ascii? Secondly why
! see by community whom would be interested and have a area describing
how one might program for unicode. Then allow those groups (languages)
tha
Jarkko Hietaniemi wrote:
>
> On Mon, Oct 23, 2000 at 10:02:44AM -0700, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> > The bottom line of this argument is that we should only
> > support ascii (read English) or the secutity code
> > will be harder to write.
>
> I wouldn't read the articule in such a desperate to
On Mon, Oct 23, 2000 at 10:02:44AM -0700, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> The bottom line of this argument is that we should only
> support ascii (read English) or the secutity code
> will be harder to write.
I wouldn't read the articule in such a desperate tone. All it says is
that Unicode is much,
The bottom line of this argument is that we should only
support ascii (read English) or the secutity code
will be harder to write.
The article basically says that Unicode is more complex than
ascii therefore security cannot easily validate input strings.
Here is the last bit of the article:
( h
