Reserved general punctuation

[Patrik Fältström]

On 28 apr 2008, at 16.21, Paul Hoffman wrote:

> 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.

Ok!

   paf