Unicode "no-op" Character?

[Rebecca Bettencourt via Unicode]

On Wed, Jul 3, 2019 at 8:47 AM Sławomir Osipiuk via Unicode <
unicode at unicode.org> wrote:

> Security gateways filter it out completely, as a matter of best practice
> and security-in-depth.
>
>
>
> A process, let’s call it Process W, adds a bunch of U+000F to a string it
> received, or built, or a user entered via keyboard. ...
>
It stores in it a database UTF-8 encoded field...
>

And the database driver filters out the U+000F completely as a matter of
best practice and security-in-depth.

You can't say "this character should be ignored everywhere" and "this
character should be preserved everywhere" at the same time. That's the
contradiction.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://unicode.org/pipermail/unicode/attachments/20190703/40756c1b/attachment.html>