should "should" be taken asWell, Unicode 3.2 (http://www.unicode.org/reports/tr28/#3_9_special_character_properties) was actually stronger, using "are to":
giving an obligation or only a recommendation?
I like the way that RFCs have a well defined meaning for "should" or "recommended" in certain contexts as defined by RFC 2119. I such contexts these words are taken to mean that, while there might be a valid reason not to do something, the implications must be understood and carefully considered.
I know that doesn't apply to any other specs. But it *should* :)
Default_Ignorable_Code_Point: For programmatic determination of default-ignorable code points. These code points are to be ignored by processes that do not explicitly support them. This permits programs to be compatible with future assignments of such characters. Ordinarily they are invisible, have no glyph, and have no advance width.
I wonder if a deliberate decision was made to tone down this language in Unicode 4.0, or was the text got at by a stylistic editor? But CGJ is newly defined as "default ignorable" in 4.0.
-- Peter Kirk [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://web.onetel.net.uk/~peterkirk/
