Web browsers should have an option to show non-ascii chars in urls in red.
It should display each code page with a different color. That would make the schema useful for non-english speaking people too.
\o/ rainbow URLs ftw!
Watch out: ɢoogle.com isn’t the same as Google.com
51–60 of 136 posts
Re: Watch out: ɢoogle.com isn’t the same as Google.com
#52This 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?
One goal of Unicode has been lossless round-tripping between legacy encodings (to encourage adoption). If such an encoding contains both Latin and Cyrillic, they must be separate to enable that.
Re: Watch out: ɢoogle.com isn’t the same as Google.com
#53This 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?
Compatibility with ISO8859. For example, for Cyrillic, the first 128 characters U+40xx match ISO8859-5.
Re: Watch out: ɢoogle.com isn’t the same as Google.com
#54Some 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.
I registered http://www.4ppl3.com a while back. No potential for abuse really, but I just thought it was fun to have a l33t-speak version of the domain name of one of the world's most litigious companies. That said, I haven't done anything with it, and I'm not a domain squatter, so if anyone wants it I can hook you up!
l33t-speak is so far off my radar that I was wondering if there was some hot startup called '4 people 3' or somesuch. I doubt anyone at Apple remotely cares about l33t-speak from a branding perspective.
Re: Watch out: ɢoogle.com isn’t the same as Google.com
#55Earlier quoted context omitted.
Everybody who isn't colorblind anyway.
Use blue, the most common types of color blindness are red-green issues(there's a really tiny percentage that doesn't perceive colors at all but really really tiny. And other than those, nobody has trouble with blue) 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 f…
-Tritanopes may beg to differ (regarding the blue not being an issue, that is.)
Significantly less common than red/green deficiency, though - I only know of one more on the island I live on (pop. 15,000 or so)
Re: Watch out: ɢoogle.com isn’t the same as Google.com
#56Earlier quoted context omitted.
I registered http://www.4ppl3.com a while back. No potential for abuse really, but I just thought it was fun to have a l33t-speak version of the domain name of one of the world's most litigious companies. That said, I haven't done anything with it, and I'm not a domain squatter, so if anyone wants it I can hook you up!
l33t-speak is so far off my radar that I was wondering if there was some hot startup called '4 people 3' or somesuch. I doubt anyone at Apple remotely cares about l33t-speak from a branding perspective.
To be fair, I don't think I know anyone who "cares" about l33t speak.
H4xx0r j0k3s is all it is.
I never seen anyone go out of their way to defend or use leet speak all day long.
Re: Watch out: ɢoogle.com isn’t the same as Google.com
#57Unicode 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."
Re: Watch out: ɢoogle.com isn’t the same as Google.com
#58Earlier quoted context omitted.
Not sure why you're getting downvited, people seem to have missed your clever use of the Cyrillic "o".
Why is the Cyrillic "o" even a separate glyph/charcode, even though it looks like a regular "o"?
Because it looks like an "o" in Verdana, but it could look different than the "o" in an other font.
Re: Watch out: ɢoogle.com isn’t the same as Google.com
#59Some 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…
Those characters are not fullwidth.
This:
www.ｐａｙｐａｌ.com
or this:
www.ＰＡＹＰＡＬ.com
would be fullwidth.
What you actually posted are characters in the Mathematical Alphanumeric Symbols block. Specifically:
𝙿 — U+1D67F MATHEMATICAL MONOSPACE CAPITAL P
𝙰 — U+1D670 MATHEMATICAL MONOSPACE CAPITAL A
𝚈 — U+1D688 MATHEMATICAL MONOSPACE CAPITAL Y
𝙻 — U+1D67B MATHEMATICAL MONOSPACE CAPITAL L