> As he put it a quarter of century ago (2000): "Unicode is just too complex to ever be secure". > It's Unicode that did fuck up, not developers who are forced

> As he put it a quarter of century ago (2000): "Unicode is just too complex to ever be secure". > It's Unicode that did fuck up, not developers who are forced to deal with non-sensical things because somewhere a committee decided that it'd make sense to use a broken system for domain names (for example). I'm not sure that's unicode's fault. Their goal is to produce a standard for encoding ~all written text. It may seem like this would be something cool to support in your program of choice, but in lots of applications that flexibility leads to vulnerabilities. I think developers need to be aware of these risks and design around them (for example by limiting the allowed characters in certain contexts).