91–100 of 136 posts
Unicode maybe should have been three dimensional, with "concept of G" in the 2D space, and "ways of representing G" behind G, along the third axis. All ways of representing G, whether little capital, capital, lower case, would or at least could equate to conceptual G in the 2D space.
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…
This is strange to me. This is clearly meant, in unicode, to be 'G' that we all know and love. It has uselessly expanded "the alphabet" (to be western-centric) in a confusable way. Unicode maybe should have been three dimensional, with "concept of G" in the 2D space, and "ways of representing G" behind G, along the third axis. All ways of representing G, whether little capital, capital, lower case, would or at least…
Any ideas for how to accomplish this in practice?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
They should already only show punycode for characters inside your locale. 'ɢ' is obviously an exception since (I imagine) it's considered to be in your locale, but maybe it shouldn't be.
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.
This is strange to me. This is clearly meant, in unicode, to be 'G' that we all know and love. It has uselessly expanded "the alphabet" (to be western-centric) in a confusable way. Unicode maybe should have been three dimensional, with "concept of G" in the 2D space, and "ways of representing G" behind G, along the third axis. All ways of representing G, whether little capital, capital, lower case, would or at least…
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unicode_equivalence
As mentioned by others on this thread, the real issue is not with Unicode per se, but rather with the ways that web browsers handle it (or fail to handle it, as the case may be).
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!
This is strange to me. This is clearly meant, in unicode, to be 'G' that we all know and love. It has uselessly expanded "the alphabet" (to be western-centric) in a confusable way. Unicode maybe should have been three dimensional, with "concept of G" in the 2D space, and "ways of representing G" behind G, along the third axis. All ways of representing G, whether little capital, capital, lower case, would or at least…
It's not necessarily the case that any given symbol has a bunch of different Unicode representations; unfortunately G has at least two, though.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/IPA_Extensions
http://www.fileformat.info/info/unicode/block/ipa_extensions...
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.
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.
This is strange to me. This is clearly meant, in unicode, to be 'G' that we all know and love. It has uselessly expanded "the alphabet" (to be western-centric) in a confusable way. Unicode maybe should have been three dimensional, with "concept of G" in the 2D space, and "ways of representing G" behind G, along the third axis. All ways of representing G, whether little capital, capital, lower case, would or at least…
That's a really interesting proposal, but I'm afraid it would be difficult to implement in practice. If this third dimension were actually encoded into the number that represents each character, you'd end up with a lot of wasted bits (since most characters probably wouldn't even need the 3rd dimension, or at least as much of it as the heaviest users.) Another option would be to supplement the metadata that already ac…