Those characters could also be put into another block for the same script
similar to how dubious characters in CJK are included by placing them into
"CJK Compatibility Ideographs" for round trip compatibility with source
encoding.
在 2020年2月14日週五 03:35，Richard Wordingham via Unicode <unicode@unicode.org>
寫道：
> On Thu, 13 Feb 2020 10:18:40 +0100
> Hans Åberg via Unicode <unicode@unicode.org> wrote:
>
> > > On 13 Feb 2020, at 00:26, Shawn Steele <shawn.ste...@microsoft.com>
> > > wrote:
> > >> From the point of view of Unicode, it is simpler: If the character
> > >> is in use or have had use, it should be included somehow.
> > >
> > > That bar, to me, seems too low. Many things are only used briefly
> > > or in a private context that doesn't really require encoding.
> >
> > That is a private use area for more special use.
>
> Writing the plural ('Egyptologists') by writing the plural strokes below
> the glyph could be difficult if the renderer won't include them in the
> same script run.
>
> Richard.
>
>
