3 ms·
There is some middle ground between opening up all of UniCode and just Latin characters. It seems that generally a subset of sufficiently distinct characters s
by mtrimpe 13y ago
There is some middle ground between opening up all of UniCode and just Latin characters.
It seems that generally a subset of sufficiently distinct characters should mostly suffice. I don't think e.g. Latin, Hebrew and Chinese have much visual overlap.
- b3n 13y agoThis is already a solved problem in every major browser. They will show mixed script domains as punycode instead of their unicode equivalent[1][2]. ICANN does not even allow all unicode characters[3]. There's so much FUD going around. [1] http://www.chromium.org/developers/design-documents/idn-in-google-chrome http://www.chromium.org/developers/design-documents/idn-in-g... [2] http://www.mozilla.org/en-US/about/governance/policies/security-group/tld-idn/ http://www.mozilla.org/en-US/about/governance/policies/secur... [3] https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc5892 https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc5892
- Patrick_Devine 13y agoGreat links. I'm not sure I'd go so far as to say it's a "solved problem" when there are four different behaviours from four separate browsers, but I'm glad each browser is taking homograph attacks seriously. In the first link, I compared Chrome and Firefox and they do work differently.