Another exception candidate: U+0F0B Tibetan tsek

Paul Hoffman phoffman at
Thu Apr 3 01:41:34 CEST 2008

At 4:13 PM -0700 4/2/08, Kenneth Whistler wrote:
>So I would suggest that before the next draft of the IDN table
>document be posted, that Patrik consider adding U+0F0B
>to the exception list, along with the two Sindhi characters
>we've been discussing.

Wearing my broken-record-shaped hat:

At 8:38 AM -0700 4/1/08, Paul Hoffman wrote:
>However, we need to hear, formally or informally, from The Unicode 
>Consortium, before we do so.

It's fine if the WG decides that the default is to put all 
exceptional characters into the exceptions list as we discover them, 
but that's a procedural decision that needs to be made by the WG and 
probably codified in one of the documents. A different decision is to 
not put any of these types of exceptions into the exceptions list and 
get the Unicode Consortium to make a change to the underlying tables 
so that the characters don't have to be treated as exceptions. And 
there is clearly points between these two poles that the WG might 

In case it isn't clear, I'm not in favor of the IDNA200x exceptions 
table being used when the change could more logically be made in the 
Unicode Standard. Doing the latter means that other protocols that 
need to make the same decisions we do can already have a cleaner base 
to work from.

More information about the Idna-update mailing list