Reserved general punctuation

[Patrik Fältström]

Yes, it is called "UNASSIGNED", but that also then imply you support  
the view that we should ignore the preallocated block definitions UTC  
has already made? I.e. ignore the fact an unassigned codepoint is  
already Other_Default_Ignorable_Code_Point?

    Patrik

On 30 apr 2008, at 13.16, Vint Cerf wrote:

> My naïve assumption is that anything unassigned has the potential to  
> become assigned so we need to have a state in which the code point  
> is not allowed for current use but could be permitted at a later  
> time. Do we have the semantics to accommodate that? V
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: idna-update-bounces at alvestrand.no <idna-update-bounces at alvestrand.no 
> >
> To: Paul Hoffman <phoffman at imc.org>
> Cc: idna-update at alvestrand.no <idna-update at alvestrand.no>
> Sent: Wed Apr 30 03:08:34 2008
> Subject: Re: Reserved general punctuation
>
> On 28 apr 2008, at 16.21, Paul Hoffman wrote:
>
>> I'm not suggesting changing the defined marks; just making
>> 2064..2069 UNASSIGNED.
>
> One view could be that as the block 2065..2069 is defined as
> Other_Default_Ignorable_Code_Point, why would it not be DISALLOWED?
> Because when the codepoint is assigned, this might change?
>
> Another view that all unassigned codepoints (as defined by not being
> defined in UnicodeData.txt) are UNASSIGNED.
>
> What do you all on this list want? Today we are implementing the  
> first.
>
>    Patrik
>
> _______________________________________________
> Idna-update mailing list
> Idna-update at alvestrand.no
> http://www.alvestrand.no/mailman/listinfo/idna-update
> _______________________________________________
> Idna-update mailing list
> Idna-update at alvestrand.no
> http://www.alvestrand.no/mailman/listinfo/idna-update