IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [Lucid] Communication.

Shawn Steele <Shawn.Steele@microsoft.com> Thu, 19 March 2015 23:49 UTC

Return-Path: <Shawn.Steele@microsoft.com>
X-Original-To: lucid@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: lucid@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B3FF71A00EF for <lucid@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 19 Mar 2015 16:49:38 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.902
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.902 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id Rgxhj1zA7hrL for <lucid@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 19 Mar 2015 16:49:37 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from na01-bn1-obe.outbound.protection.outlook.com (mail-bn1bon0744.outbound.protection.outlook.com [IPv6:2a01:111:f400:fc10::1:744]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id CFC991A00EA for <lucid@ietf.org>; Thu, 19 Mar 2015 16:49:36 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from BLUPR03MB1378.namprd03.prod.outlook.com (25.163.81.12) by BLUPR03MB1379.namprd03.prod.outlook.com (25.163.81.13) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.1.118.21; Thu, 19 Mar 2015 23:49:16 +0000
Received: from BLUPR03MB1378.namprd03.prod.outlook.com ([25.163.81.12]) by BLUPR03MB1378.namprd03.prod.outlook.com ([25.163.81.12]) with mapi id 15.01.0112.000; Thu, 19 Mar 2015 23:49:16 +0000
From: Shawn Steele <Shawn.Steele@microsoft.com>
To: Peter Saint-Andre - &yet <peter@andyet.net>, "lucid@ietf.org" <lucid@ietf.org>
Thread-Topic: [Lucid] Communication.
Thread-Index: AQHQYphZmKACuLeXr0GotId8E7ZSCp0kb3LAgAAApgCAAAG90A==
Date: Thu, 19 Mar 2015 23:49:15 +0000
Message-ID: <BLUPR03MB137850E3E232AA345126D1D282010@BLUPR03MB1378.namprd03.prod.outlook.com>
References: <BLUPR03MB1378075831687B9D8DCE68A382010@BLUPR03MB1378.namprd03.prod.outlook.com> <550B54CA.1050202@andyet.net> <BLUPR03MB1378243051BDD99E366CE40782010@BLUPR03MB1378.namprd03.prod.outlook.com> <550B58A8.8030101@andyet.net>
In-Reply-To: <550B58A8.8030101@andyet.net>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-originating-ip: [2001:4898:80e8:ee31::2]
authentication-results: andyet.net; dkim=none (message not signed) header.d=none;
x-microsoft-antispam: UriScan:;BCL:0;PCL:0;RULEID:;SRVR:BLUPR03MB1379;
x-microsoft-antispam-prvs: <BLUPR03MB1379B4BC27C34E1412C6AD2082010@BLUPR03MB1379.namprd03.prod.outlook.com>
x-forefront-antispam-report: BMV:1; SFV:NSPM; SFS:(10019020)(6009001)(76176999)(50986999)(76576001)(54356999)(62966003)(77156002)(33656002)(102836002)(2501003)(2950100001)(2900100001)(99286002)(86612001)(86362001)(46102003)(40100003)(122556002)(106116001)(92566002)(74316001)(107886001)(87936001)(2656002)(3826002); DIR:OUT; SFP:1102; SCL:1; SRVR:BLUPR03MB1379; H:BLUPR03MB1378.namprd03.prod.outlook.com; FPR:; SPF:None; MLV:sfv; LANG:en;
x-exchange-antispam-report-test: UriScan:;
x-exchange-antispam-report-cfa-test: BCL:0; PCL:0; RULEID:(601004)(5005006)(5002010); SRVR:BLUPR03MB1379; BCL:0; PCL:0; RULEID:; SRVR:BLUPR03MB1379;
x-forefront-prvs: 052017CAF1
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-OriginatorOrg: microsoft.onmicrosoft.com
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-originalarrivaltime: 19 Mar 2015 23:49:15.9888 (UTC)
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-fromentityheader: Hosted
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-id: 72f988bf-86f1-41af-91ab-2d7cd011db47
X-MS-Exchange-Transport-CrossTenantHeadersStamped: BLUPR03MB1379
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/lucid/0P3HI4WquXtcFbLmrzfwnwvEcSg>
Subject: Re: [Lucid] Communication.
X-BeenThere: lucid@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: "Locale-free UniCode Identifiers \(LUCID\)" <lucid.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/lucid>, <mailto:lucid-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/lucid/>
List-Post: <mailto:lucid@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:lucid-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lucid>, <mailto:lucid-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 19 Mar 2015 23:49:38 -0000

> Humans aren't computers and they make decisions and get confused based on appearance. I don't see the two perspectives as mutually exclusive.

They're orthogonal though.  Clearly some characters are confusable yet necessary (Cyrillic А and Latin A).  The example in the appendix point out other cases where multiple code points are confusable.  The only real difference between the examples in PRECIS/lucid's Appendix A is questioning of the validity of the same-script similarities in Appendix A, bases primarily in the appearance.

I find l̦ and ļ fairly difficult to distinguish, yet the distinction between ț and ţ (easier to tell, but the same combining marks) is important to some.   Should l̦ and ļ be forbidden or unified because I can't see a distinction and I have no clue how people would use them?  l̦ and ļ aren't in Appendix A (are they supposed to be?)  

For that matter, I have a hard time seeing a difference between i and i̇, however IDNA makes particular use of the odd combination in the casing/normalization rules.  Those aren't in Appendix A.

Should i and i̇ be in Appendix A?  What about l̦ and ļ?  If not, can someone explain why they're special?

-Shawn

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email