Reserved general punctuation

Paul Hoffman phoffman at
Wed Apr 30 16:50:15 CEST 2008

At 12:08 PM +0200 4/30/08, Patrik Fältström wrote:
>On 28 apr 2008, at 16.21, Paul Hoffman wrote:
>>I'm not suggesting changing the defined marks; just making 
>>2064..2069 UNASSIGNED.
>One view could be that as the block 2065..2069 is defined as 
>Other_Default_Ignorable_Code_Point, why would it not be DISALLOWED? 
>Because when the codepoint is assigned, this might change?
>Another view that all unassigned codepoints (as defined by not being 
>defined in UnicodeData.txt) are UNASSIGNED.
>What do you all on this list want? Today we are implementing the first.

The danger with implementing the first is that the Unicode Consortium 
folks can easily change the boundaries of 
Other_Default_Ignorable_Code_Point if they really want a 
non-ignorable code point to be at a certain position for some 
bureaucratic or aesthetic reason. We in the IETF do that in some of 
our IANA registries.

I think the second may be safer.

More information about the Idna-update mailing list