Gaspar Sinai wrote: > I am thinking about electronically signed Unicode text documents > that are rendered correctly or believeed to be rendered correctly, > still they look different, seem to contain additional or do not > seem to contain some text when viewed with different viewers due > to some ambiguities inherent in the standard.
This sounds like a rendering (application) issue not a character encoding (unicode) issue. If the applicaton or operating environment doesn't properly support complex script rendering (and / or if the client doesn't have the right fonts installed) then text in complex scripts might be rendered incorrectly - or not at all. Chances are such text would either be nonsensical, look like gobbledegook, or display as string of empty boxes indicating missing glyphs. Would you sign something like that? Can you give an example of some text or document a person might be fooled into signing that would mean one thing if rendered correctly and something entirely different when rendered incorrectly? - Chris
