06FD and 06FE should be PVALID for Sindhi

[Michael Everson]

At 11:54 -0700 2008-04-01, Mark Davis wrote:
>The fact that it is used in text doesn't necessarily mean that the 
>General_Category has to be Letter, any more than it does for similar 
>elements in other scripts, including:
>
>U+0026 AMPERSAND  gc=Po
>U+204A TIRONIAN SIGN ET  gc=Po

No, Mark, I don't think that's right. I think that's thinking from 
the assigned property rather than thinking from the character itself. 
You have to remember that these were assigned "So" in 1997 or 1998, 
when there was no notion of this particular use of the character 
properties. These could have been assigned "Lo", and indeed might 
have been if they had been proposed with a full description. As it 
happens one if not both of them were encoded because they were in an 
ISO TC46 standard. Since they had already been standardized in ISO, 
there was not a lot of research done on them (by anybody). So the 
assignment of "So" rather than "Lo" for these is surely accidental in 
our present context.

>Even if the consortium were to decide that they should have the 
>category Letter, It is far too late for any change in Unicode 5.1. 
>The window of opportunity for property changes in 5.1 closed about 2 
>months ago: it's due to be released this Friday.

True.

>If there is sufficient evidence that they must be in IDNs (which is 
>related to, but different from, evidence that they are used in 
>flowing text), then they should go into the exception list.

That is fine. The important thing is that they are PVALID; whether 
that happens with a change from "So" to "Lo" is irrelevant so long as 
there is an exceptions list.
-- 
Michael Everson * http://www.evertype.com