- From: Andrew Cunningham <andrewc@vicnet.net.au>
- Date: Sun, 1 Feb 2009 13:17:04 +1100 (EST)
- To: "Anne van Kesteren" <annevk@opera.com>
- Cc: "Jonathan Kew" <jonathan@jfkew.plus.com>, "Richard Ishida" <ishida@w3.org>, "'L. David Baron'" <dbaron@dbaron.org>, public-i18n-core@w3.org, www-style@w3.org
On Sat, January 31, 2009 2:18 am, Anne van Kesteren wrote: > > I don't have much to add to my previous e-mail, apart from this. > > On Fri, 30 Jan 2009 16:02:02 +0100, Jonathan Kew <jonathan@jfkew.plus.com> > wrote: >> It seems to me that this issue is similar to that of Internationalized >> Domain Names, where it certainly isn't considered acceptable for there >> to be canonically-equivalent names that are treated as distinct. > > Program code and IDNs are very different. Actual end users have to > interact with IDNs so it makes a lot of sense not to allow effectively > identical names to be registered as that would open up all kinds of > spoofing issues (apart from the spoofing issues IDNs already enable). End > users do not deal with program code. but developers have to type code, sometimes more than one developer needs to work on the code. And if they are using different input tolls, and those tools are generating different codepoints, when identical codepoints are required ... then there is a problem. Andrew -- Andrew Cunningham Research and Development Coordinator Vicnet State Library of Victoria Australia andrewc@vicnet.net.au
Received on Sunday, 1 February 2009 02:17:53 UTC