Fwd: Why incomplete subscript/superscript alphabet ?

[Ken Whistler]

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