Reserved general punctuation

Mark Davis mark.davis at
Thu Mar 20 18:20:48 CET 2008

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>

Part of this is, as I said, that the formulation of the rules in 05 makes it
very hard to see what is happening. So it wasn't until I did a test against
what I thought the logic should be that these popped out.


On Thu, Mar 20, 2008 at 7:43 AM, Paul Hoffman <phoffman at> wrote:

> At 2:10 AM -0700 3/20/08, Mark Davis wrote:
> >1. I just did a test of the 05 tables (against Unicode 5.0).
> >
> >Other than the Cf issue, I found one other thing. There are
> ><reserved> characters (that is, General_Category=Cn) that show up as
> >DISALLOWED when they shouldn't.
> >
> >2064..2069  ; DISALLOWED  # <reserved>..<reserved>
> >...
> >
> >I believe the reason is that they are default_ignoreable. But
> >General_Category=Cn should take precedence.
> I am not understanding the logic here. Are you saying IDNA200x should
> have a hole for later additions of punctuation to the Unicode
> Standard? We don't know the properties of those future characters.
> _______________________________________________
> Idna-update mailing list
> Idna-update at

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...

More information about the Idna-update mailing list