Yes, it should be DISALLOWED.<br><br clear="all">Mark<br>
<br><br><div class="gmail_quote">On Thu, Jul 16, 2009 at 01:22, Michael Everson <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:everson@evertype.com">everson@evertype.com</a>></span> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;">
<div class="im">On 16 Jul 2009, at 08:27, Patrik Fältström wrote:<br>
<br>
> On 15 jul 2009, at 00.56, Kenneth Whistler wrote:<br>
><br>
</div><div class="im">> I have not seen any explicit consensus that U+07FA NKO LAJANYALAN<br>
> should be DISALLOWED, but maybe I am misunderstanding the earlier<br>
> discussions about TATWEEL.<br>
><br>
> Is the consensus of the group that U+07FA NKO LAJANYALAN should be<br>
> DISALLOWED as an exception?<br>
<br>
</div>It is 100% as meaningless as a character and as dangerous in an IDN<br>
context as TATWEEL. Yes, it should be DISALLOWED.<br>
<div class="im"><br>
Michael Everson * <a href="http://www.evertype.com/" target="_blank">http://www.evertype.com/</a><br>
<br>
_______________________________________________<br>
</div><div><div></div><div class="h5">Idna-update mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:Idna-update@alvestrand.no">Idna-update@alvestrand.no</a><br>
<a href="http://www.alvestrand.no/mailman/listinfo/idna-update" target="_blank">http://www.alvestrand.no/mailman/listinfo/idna-update</a><br>
</div></div></blockquote></div><br>