Reserved general punctuation

[Patrik Fältström]

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.
>>
>>   Patrik
>
> Unfortunately, it did not get reflected in your newest draft from  
> earlier today, which says:
>
> 200E..2071  ; DISALLOWED  # LEFT-TO-RIGHT MARK..SUPERSCRIPT LATIN  
> SMALL
>
> 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:

200E;LEFT-TO-RIGHT MARK;Cf;0;L;;;;;N;;;;;

What do you want this to be? What change do you suggest to the rules?

    Patrik