bug#20789: Invalid script or charset name: cuneiform-numbers-and-punctuation

[Glenn Morris <rgm@gnu.org>]

Eli Zaretskii wrote:

>> The width 2 characters look like they might be the "W" and "F" characters,
>
> Yes.
>
>> but just doing that gives a list that has many differences to the list
>> Emacs uses.

This is list of "F" and "W" characters, compared to the 11 ranges that
Emacs uses:

(#x1100 . #x115F)
(#x2329 . #x232A)
(#x2E80 . #x2E99)
(#x2E9B . #x2EF3)
(#x2F00 . #x2FD5)
(#x2FF0 . #x2FFB)
(#x3000 . #x303E)
(#x3041 . #x3096)
(#x3099 . #x30FF)
(#x3105 . #x312D)
(#x3131 . #x318E)
(#x3190 . #x31BA)
(#x31C0 . #x31E3)
(#x31F0 . #x321E)
(#x3220 . #x3247)
(#x3250 . #x32FE)
(#x3300 . #x4DBF)
(#x4E00 . #xA48C)
(#xA490 . #xA4C6)
(#xA960 . #xA97C)
(#xAC00 . #xD7A3)
(#xF900 . #xFAFF)
(#xFE10 . #xFE19)
(#xFE30 . #xFE52)
(#xFE54 . #xFE66)
(#xFE68 . #xFE6B)
(#xFF01 . #xFF60)
(#xFFE0 . #xFFE6)
(#x1B000 . #x1B001)
(#x1F200 . #x1F202)
(#x1F210 . #x1F23A)
(#x1F240 . #x1F248)
(#x1F250 . #x1F251)
(#x20000 . #x2FFFD)
(#x30000 . #x3FFFD)

> I don't see any significant differences, except perhaps in unassigned
> codepoints (see paragraph 6.1 of UAX#11 for the treatment of
> unassigned CJK codepoints).

I don't know if this means that the above needs modifying?