Reserved general punctuation

[Paul Hoffman]

At 9:59 AM +0200 4/28/08, Patrik Fältström wrote:
>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?

I'm not suggesting changing the defined marks; just making 2064..2069 
UNASSIGNED.