Hmm... "filling in Latin alphabet encoding gaps without clear use cases" is exactly what was done for the blackboard bold letters. I scarcely think that a use case was submitted for every one of the blackboard bold etc letters in the mathematical set; merely the use of blackboard bold for a general purpose of denoting sets such as the naturals, reals, complex numbers etc, and the fact that arbitrary letters might be used if a mathematician desired, seems to have sufficed.
I believe the same logic applies to the case of linguistics, where the use of superscripts are a common convention. On Fri, Oct 7, 2016 at 2:53 PM, Ken Whistler <[email protected]> wrote: > > > On 10/7/2016 11:25 AM, Oren Watson wrote: > >> Would it be appropriate to submit an omnibus proposal for encoding all >> remaining english letters in subscript, small caps, and superscript in the >> SMP for the purpose of not arbitrarily constraining the use of unicode for >> new linguistic theories and ideas, similar to the mathematical characters? >> >> > I don't see that the use of Unicode characters for new linguistic theories > and ideas is arbitrarily constrained as it stands. So no, I don't think it > make sense to submit such a proposal on spec. I don't understand peoples' > fascination with multiplying the encoding of the Latin alphabet A-Z over > and over and over again. Modifier letters are different from the > mathematical styled alphabets -- modifier letters include many letters and > symbols beyond A-Z, and there isn't any clear marginal benefit in trying to > "complete" their set somehow by filling in Latin alphabet encoding gaps > without clear use cases. > > --Ken > >
