Cf?

[Erik van der Poel]

Instead of trying to make a decision for each Cf character, putting
all of them in CONTEXTO (and two in CONTEXTJ) seems like it would
leave the door open to those characters (since we can write contextual
rules for them later).

Making them DISALLOWED now makes it harder to allow them later. No?

Anyway, I don't really care about the rest of Cf. It seems like there
is a more pressing need to make a decision about U+200C.

Erik

On Tue, Mar 18, 2008 at 8:15 AM, Paul Hoffman <phoffman at imc.org> wrote:
> At 7:37 AM -0700 3/18/08, Erik van der Poel wrote:
>  >In the diff that you sent out a little while ago (between 05 and 06c),
>  >U+200C changed from CONTEXTJ to DISALLOWED.
>
>  Exactly,
>
>
>  >Maybe we just haven't reached consensus on this character, but I
>  >thought most (some?) of us were moving in the direction of allowing
>  >U+200C (in certain contexts).
>
>  We need to think about whether any {Cf} characters are allowed in any
>  context. If so, Patrik's proposed recent change doesn't work without
>  more refinement.
>