Reserved general punctuation
patrik at frobbit.se
Mon Apr 28 09:59:47 CEST 2008
On 27 apr 2008, at 21.01, Paul Hoffman wrote:
> At 10:21 PM +0100 3/20/08, Patrik Fältström wrote:
>> On 20 mar 2008, at 18.30, Paul Hoffman wrote:
>>> At 10:20 AM -0700 3/20/08, Mark Davis wrote:
>>>> No, I'm saying the reverse. The way the 05 logic is set up, the
>>>> table contains the lines I quoted:
>>>> 2064..2069 ; DISALLOWED # <reserved>..<reserved>
>>>> I think it should not; that is, that those *should* be:
>>>> 2064..2069 ; UNASSIGNED # <reserved>..<reserved>
>>> Got it. Yes, that seems right.
>> I just want people to know I have seen this.
> Unfortunately, it did not get reflected in your newest draft from
> earlier today, which says:
> 200E..2071 ; DISALLOWED # LEFT-TO-RIGHT MARK..SUPERSCRIPT LATIN
> Maybe the algorithm needs further tweaking for this.
Yes, I need to know what changes people want to the existing rules. In
Unicode 5.1, U+200E is like this:
What do you want this to be? What change do you suggest to the rules?
More information about the Idna-update