Reserved general punctuation
patrik at frobbit.se
Thu May 1 06:10:45 CEST 2008
On 1 maj 2008, at 02.35, Kenneth Whistler wrote:
> The intent of the table derivation for draft-ietf-idna-tables-00.txt,
> as I understand it is that all unassigned code points should
> always be UNASSIGNED in the table, regardless of what other
> properties they might have in Unicode data files.
> Therefore, we have an ordering bug in the algorithm that is
> deriving the table, because it has decided that 2065..2069
> should be DISALLOWED, based on their occurring in the
> class defined by category C, when they clearly should be
> UNASSIGNED, based on their status as unassigned in Unicode 5.1.
Thanks Ken, what I thought. We completely agree.
This is exactly why I asked what people wanted (but I did not write so
A. All unassigned codepoints (unassigned according to not existing in
UnicodeData.txt, because that is what I have found is defining
"unassigned") should be UNASSIGNED [This is fixed by reordering the
rules in the draft]
B. All codepoints that have some metadata is evaluated based on that
metadata [This is what we do today, but the result is that some
codepoints that are unassigned in Unicode will not end up being
Most people so far have said A is the way to go.
P.S. I still do not understand why the draft is not in the repository.
More information about the Idna-update