Proud owner of http://gïthub.com checking in...
Awesome site, by the way. I'm just checking out your tutorial on LDA.
Watch out: ɢoogle.com isn’t the same as Google.com
121–130 of 136 posts
Re: Watch out: ɢoogle.com isn’t the same as Google.com
#122Earlier quoted context omitted.
Why? Non-latin alphabet domain names do have legitimate uses, although they are very rarely used.
Except by a third of all people who live in China and India. Not everyone speaks a language that is representable in the latin alphabet. In fact, a very large percentage of people do not.
China and India don't pose a problem since Pinyin uses standard ASCII characters and neither Chinese characters nor Brahmic scripts have any symbols that resemble ASCII characters.
Re: Watch out: ɢoogle.com isn’t the same as Google.com
#123Earlier quoted context omitted.
Don't even show the suspect URL, show "THIS MIGHT BE A SCAM", with some kind of hover over showing the URL, and some way to click to more information.
The Chinese will be thrilled!
Chinese people will be fine since all Chinese URLs are either ASCII compliant or use Chinese characters, which can't be confused with any ASCII characters.
Russians would definitely be pissed though.
Re: Watch out: ɢoogle.com isn’t the same as Google.com
#124Earlier quoted context omitted.
That defeats the purpose of an internationalized dns system. The whole point of getting unicode into domain names is so we can have 新浪首页.com so that it's no longer a latin alphabet centric system.
Doesn't that yield a whole class of problems though that we're trying to solve with obtuse solutions such as "let's make that character set in red so people don't get phished"? How is that any more international and/or easy to use? It seems that putting the allowed character set into the tld would be a pretty user-friendly way of doing that. Edit: As an added bonus, tlds are centrally managed, and are already western…
One is a matter of international standardization of a protocol. Another is a matter of client side security for a certain type of user.
Re: Watch out: ɢoogle.com isn’t the same as Google.com
#125Unicode URLs are the devil. Too many indistinguishable characters. URLs should stay full ASCII imho. And I say that as someone whose language requires non-ASCII symbols. Or, in Bruce Schneier's words: "Unicode is just too complex to ever be secure."
But think about the poor underrepresented folks using foreign character sets? You really need to support this 'sub café {} café()' => Undefined subroutine café in your friendly and social programming language, otherwise you will be accused of discrimination. Of course the two é are not normalized. Which unicode-friendly language does really check for mixed script confusables? Java only is my guess. Even perl6 falls…
When it is just accents, it's ok. But when your users have a language that uses à radically different alphabet, sometimes they can't even read Latin transliterations.
Re: Watch out: ɢoogle.com isn’t the same as Google.com
#126This is something that's been bugging me for years. Why are there multiple representations of alphabet characters in Unicode? It seems reasonable to include accent marks, but what's the benefit in having a Cyrillic 'o' alongside a standard 'o' or the 2 or 3 other ASCII-lookalike sets of characters?
There will never be agreement what's the set of distinct characters (also, what characters should be included, bitcoin logo, facebook logo?)). I see Unicode as a necessary evil. Due to its complexity most applications should treat Unicode text as black boxes. I never rely on Unicode for computation. When receiving Unicode I always make sure it's in the ASCII range. It could be argued that there should never have been…
> When receiving Unicode I always make sure it's in the ASCII range. [...] Western people are very lucky that ASCII includes most of their characters...
Please don't spread the myth of Western languages being encodable in ASCII, and don't pretend to support Unicode (or anything else than English) if you filter everything to ASCII.
The _only_ Western language that is encodable in ASCII is English.
Corollary: English is the only language that can be encoded in ASCII.
The other western languages have endless issues with text being encoded/stripped down to ASCII. e.g. French, Spanish, Portuguese, German...
Re: Watch out: ɢoogle.com isn’t the same as Google.com
#127Earlier quoted context omitted.
The Chinese will be thrilled!
Chinese people will be fine since all Chinese URLs are either ASCII compliant or use Chinese characters, which can't be confused with any ASCII characters. Russians would definitely be pissed though.
Just handle .рф domains (and the Serbian Cyrillic ccTLD) specially.
Re: Watch out: ɢoogle.com isn’t the same as Google.com
#128Earlier quoted context omitted.
There will never be agreement what's the set of distinct characters (also, what characters should be included, bitcoin logo, facebook logo?)). I see Unicode as a necessary evil. Due to its complexity most applications should treat Unicode text as black boxes. I never rely on Unicode for computation. When receiving Unicode I always make sure it's in the ASCII range. It could be argued that there should never have been…
> When receiving Unicode I always make sure it's in the ASCII range. [...] Western people are very lucky that ASCII includes most of their characters... Please don't spread the myth of Western languages being encodable in ASCII, and don't pretend to support Unicode (or anything else than English) if you filter everything to ASCII. The _only_ Western language that is encodable in ASCII is English. Corollary: English i…
As a german I can attest that I can very well converse (e.g Email) in ASCII. Although it's convenient to use Umlauts, which I do. And I also agree that French or Spanish might be less convenient.
But that was not my point. The point was about identifiers, such as DNS names.
Re: Watch out: ɢoogle.com isn’t the same as Google.com
#129Earlier quoted context omitted.
The Chinese will be thrilled!
Chinese people will be fine since all Chinese URLs are either ASCII compliant or use Chinese characters, which can't be confused with any ASCII characters. Russians would definitely be pissed though.
To my understanding the unicode standard encodes an ASCII transliteration of an Unicode symbol to itself, but what about typographical similances? Wouldn't that be a hard problem? Perhaps there are two unicode characters that look exactly the same (using a given typeface) but have different transliterations. Or vice versa - two totally different looking characters share transliterations and gave false alarms.
Re: Watch out: ɢoogle.com isn’t the same as Google.com
#130Earlier quoted context omitted.
That would be very confusing for multilingual users. Just because my OS is configured to use a certain locale, doesn't mean I don't read text in scripts not considered part of it.
Your OS (and browser) support multiple languages, so if you speak a language they should in the list.
They are of course, but if you use that list instead of a single locale, you end up with a solution that only highlights 'strange' characters when they are not part of your language/locale set. So for someone who speaks only Latin character based languages you could highlight all Cyrillic characters, but for someone who speaks Russian you still have the original problem (it's not as if you can just highlight all Latin characters in their case!).