On Thu, Feb 07, 2002 at 10:34:20AM -0500, Elliotte Rusty Harold wrote: > Security and spoofing are very real issues that were never, as far as > I know, even considered in the design of Unicode.
Unicode is a character encoding, not a glyph encoding. Furthermore, it's a superset of a number of preexisting character sets, so that it was possible for those users to move to Unicode without problems. Since important preexisting character sets seperated Greek, Cyrillic and Latin scripts, Unicode had to. Had Unicode not chosen to follow these principles, ISO 10646 would have, and it would have become the dominant character set, with the same problems. In any case, what is your solution? When the American Mathematical Society says "We need a SMALL CIRCLE for the mathematical texts", do you say "no, we already have the unified LATGRKCRY SMALL O"? After they show you that the two are distinct characters in their texts, do you still refuse because "someone might get confused"? The Universal Character Set can't afford to not encode characters like that. -- David Starner - [EMAIL PROTECTED], dvdeug/jabber.com (Jabber) Pointless website: http://dvdeug.dhis.org What we've got is a blue-light special on truth. It's the hottest thing with the youth. -- Information Society, "Peace and Love, Inc."
