Reserved general punctuation
Erik van der Poel
erikv at google.com
Wed Apr 30 17:45:56 CEST 2008
The trouble with that 2nd definition is that UnicodeData.txt does not
contain "noncharacters" such as U+FFFF. I would prefer IDNA's
"UNASSIGNED" to exclude Unicode "noncharacters", since they will never
be reassigned to a different meaning.
I suspect Ken would know how to state this properly. (Thanks in
advance for any input you may provide.)
On Wed, Apr 30, 2008 at 7:50 AM, Paul Hoffman <phoffman at imc.org> wrote:
> 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
> > >
> > 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.
> Idna-update mailing list
> Idna-update at alvestrand.no
More information about the Idna-update