Live data from Hacker News

Watch out: ɢoogle.com isn’t the same as Google.com

thenextweb.com

71–80 of 136 posts

Re: Watch out: ɢoogle.com isn’t the same as Google.com

#71
post #21

Web browsers should have an option to show non-ascii chars in urls in red.

Chinese character domains would be shown in red letters. I think it's a good choice of color. :)

What about websites without Chinese characters? I know in Asia, having red colored names is kind of offensive (evokes of the Reaper's 'hit list').

Would be annoying if [name].me or whatever is red!

Re: Watch out: ɢoogle.com isn’t the same as Google.com

#72

Web browsers should have an option to show non-ascii chars in urls in red.

No reason for me to try to pick out specific characters. I won't notice. Plus, it won't work for zero width characters, and I might miss it for really tiny ones.

Give me a popup warning explaining the problem when I try to visit the site, same as I get for certificate problems.

Re: Watch out: ɢoogle.com isn’t the same as Google.com

#73

Earlier 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…

Isn't this a general argument against ever using red as a warning? Seems to prove too much.

Especially in this case, where there is unlikely to be a specialized class of scammers who go phishing only for people with red-green colorblindness. So long as browsers implement a feature that stops the phishing in 99% of cases, the scammers will try something else.

Re: Watch out: ɢoogle.com isn’t the same as Google.com

#74
I'm not sure how feasible this is, but wouldn't it make sense for .com/.net/etc to be latin alphabet only and allow other domains to be localized with unicode? I wouldn't really have a problem with 新浪首页.cn, and I doubt I would confuse ɢoogle.ru or whatever with google.com

Re: Watch out: ɢoogle.com isn’t the same as Google.com

#75

I'm not sure how feasible this is, but wouldn't it make sense for .com/.net/etc to be latin alphabet only and allow other domains to be localized with unicode? I wouldn't really have a problem with 新浪首页.cn, and I doubt I would confuse ɢoogle.ru or whatever with google.com

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.

Re: Watch out: ɢoogle.com isn’t the same as Google.com

#76
post #49

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?

The (seemingly obstinate) answer is that they are different characters. The Russian H sounds like an N in English.

If you're transcribing a conversation at the UN and there is a mix of different languages the fact that "Het" is transcribed as a latin character set is information. Het may be a southern American group of people, or it could just be a Russian dude saying "no", even if it looks the same.

I understand that we're still burdened by intralanguage homonyms, but I appreciate the fact that it isn't complicated further.

Re: Watch out: ɢoogle.com isn’t the same as Google.com

#77
post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Chinese character domains would be shown in red letters. I think it's a good choice of color. :)

What about websites without Chinese characters? I know in Asia, having red colored names is kind of offensive (evokes of the Reaper's 'hit list'). Would be annoying if [name].me or whatever is red!

I agree with you completely. Cultural sensitivity is a difficult thing when you have a global audience for your product or service.

Maybe as part of the locale configuration, in addition to number and date format, people should pick a friendly and an offensive color! :)

Re: Watch out: ɢoogle.com isn’t the same as Google.com

#78
post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Nope. The browser is behaving sensibly, since you can't register that domain. It's applying the same rules that the registrars do. 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\uf…

Interesting. So, out of interest, why is the same not being applied for ɢ? (When I ran it through Python's unidecode I got the roman symbol all the same).

Re: Watch out: ɢoogle.com isn’t the same as Google.com

#79
post #55

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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)

Wasn't aware of that one. Significantly fewer people affected though(I think red-green is something like 10% of males)
Post reply on HN