Re: [charmod-norm] Limitations of Normalization - Confusion

On 4/7/2016 1:26 AM, r12a wrote:
>
> See c3d6ee7 
> 
<https://github.com/w3c/charmod-norm/commit/c3d6ee795603532f018dbe38992e7e60fd9da6d2>
>
> —
> You are receiving this because you were mentioned.
> Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub 
> 
<https://github.com/w3c/charmod-norm/issues/88#issuecomment-206757914>
>
The latest edits include

    old: Similar examples of identical appearance (called a
    <dfn>homoglyph</dfn>)...
    new: Other examples of similar or identical appearance examples of
    identical appearance (called a <dfn>homograpph</dfn>)...


If you include "similar" on the same footing as "identical" then it 
would be better simply change homograph to "confusable".

We need some term to distinguish identical appearance from "if I hold 
it 
at arms length and squint" similarity, but if you do not make that 
distinction then the term "confusable" is the technical term to use. 
Then you can drop the scare quotes around the term in the next 
paragraph.

Also, the note on IDNA2003 may be overstating things by implicitly 
claiming that it successfully removes all distinctions mentioned. At 
the 
same time, it may understate the issue, because by its placement it 
appears a statement limited to characters with "same meaning or 
function".

I believe it would be more accurate to make this an independent 
paragraph and apply it more broadly to all efforts at overcoming 
limitations:

    Note that some processes or protocols attempt to overcome these
    limitations via the addition of add-on steps to the normalization
    process. One example of this is IDNA2003.


(I'm still not sure about using IDNA2003 as an example. Seems backward
 
looking to me, somehow).




-- 
GitHub Notification of comment by asmusf
Please view or discuss this issue at 
https://github.com/w3c/charmod-norm/issues/88#issuecomment-206933833 
using your GitHub account

Received on Thursday, 7 April 2016 14:34:53 UTC