. Jim Allan wrote, > Probably the best solution would be to display a special glyph with the > meaning "character not supported".
TUS seems to suggest (4.0 on page 110) that various control pictures can be used in these special circumstances. It might even be helpful for an application to use a special "character forbidden" glyph if appropriate. Earlier in this thread, I'd said I was responding to Jim Allan's original post, of course it was Jon Hanna's. It's just one of those days. Kent Karlsson wrote, > And indeed IDN (Internationalised domain names) does so. > Basically, IDNs aren't private, or, if you will, the established > agreement for IDNs is not to interpret PUA characters at all, > except for prohibiting them, as are surrogate code points > (when not properly paired in UTF-16), non-characters, and > code points that weren't assigned in Unicode 3.2 (the latter > will change with a new version of IDN). It seems unlikely that the existence of a ".com" would unravel the fabric of the universe... (In ASCII cipher, that would be "Qapla'.com", trying to send CSUR PUA UTF-8 example, having problems with e-mailers. Still.) Best regards, James Kass .
