41–50 of 136 posts
Web browsers should have an option to show non-ascii chars in urls in red.
This would be a great solution. Allowing unicode characters in domain names is just inviting trouble. I understand that people with non-Latin scripts want domain names in their own language and alphabet, but there are way too many unicode characters that will confuse people about legitimate-looking domain names. Showing non-ascii in red would be an easy solution for everybody.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Why is everyone thinking so small? What about https://www.goоgle.com ? Or how about the word "gullible" isn't in the dictionary? http://www.dictionary.com/browse/gulliblе
I think, it's impossible to register this domain.
I believe now that browsers have support for non-ascii URLs, each of them have schemes for anti-phishing. See https://www.w3.org/International/articles/idn-and-iri/ and https://wiki.mozilla.org/IDN_Display_Algorithm plus http://www.chromium.org/developers/design-documents/idn-in-g...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Why is everyone thinking so small? What about https://www.goоgle.com ? Or how about the word "gullible" isn't in the dictionary? http://www.dictionary.com/browse/gulliblе
Not sure why you're getting downvited, people seem to have missed your clever use of the Cyrillic "o".
Some time ago I registered http://www.goolge.io/ . Still haven't done anything with it, I guess at some point I'll just redirect it to duckduckgo. [EDIT: now it's redirected to duckduckgo.] This can of course be used in a malicious way. I thought about rebuilding the homepage of the bank Credit Suisse on www.credit-siusse.ch, but that's probably illegal.
Most browsers should forcibly transcribe this to Punycode[1]: https://www.𝙿𝙰𝚈𝙿𝙰𝙻.com/ And yet when I paste this into the latest Firefox it redirects to https://www.paypal.com/ No 301 redirects or anything, the browser just treats it like ASCII, which it is clearly not, it actually happens to be Fullwidth: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fullwidth_form Serious phishing opportunity if you ask me! [1] https://en.wik…
ICANN require that registries follow RFC3491 and related RFCs for name prep before allowing a name to be registered https://www.icann.org/resources/unthemed-pages/idn-guideline... . What that one does is (among other things) NFKC normalization and case-folding:
irb(main):016:0> "\ufeff\uff30\uff21\uff39\uff30\uff21\uff2c"
=> "ＰＡＹＰＡＬ"
irb(main):017:0> "\ufeff\uff30\uff21\uff39\uff30\uff21\uff2c".unicode_normalize(:nfkc).downcase
=> "paypal"Earlier quoted context omitted.
This would be a great solution. Allowing unicode characters in domain names is just inviting trouble. I understand that people with non-Latin scripts want domain names in their own language and alphabet, but there are way too many unicode characters that will confuse people about legitimate-looking domain names. Showing non-ascii in red would be an easy solution for everybody.
Everybody who isn't colorblind anyway.
Source: I'm colorblind(protanope) and red would definitely be an issue. Android studio, for example, is really annoying for me because the particular red they use for errors is very hard to distinguish from black
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?
This 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?