A sign/abbreviation for "magister"

[James Kass via Unicode]

Richard Wordingham responded to Janusz S. Bień,

 >> ... Nobody ever claimed that reproducing all variations
 >> in manuscripts is in scope of Unicode, so whom do you want
 >> to convince that it is not?
 >
 > I think the counter-claim is that one will never be able
 > to encode all the meaning-conveying distinctions of text
 > in Unicode.

I think that the general agreement is that Unicode plain text isn't 
intended for preserving stylistic differences.  The dilemma is that 
opinions differ as to what constitutes a stylistic difference.

If there had been an "International Typewriter Usage Consortium" a 
hundred years ago which had issued an edict like "the underscore is 
placed on the keyboard for the explicit purpose of typing empty lines 
for 'fill-in-the-blank' forms, and must never be used by the typist to 
underline any other element of type", then that consortium would have 
been dictating how users perceive their own written symbols along with 
preventing users from establishing new conventions using existing 
symbols, experimenting, or innovating.

Some people consider that Unicode is essentially doing the same kind of 
thing.  It's *that* perception which needs to be addressed, perhaps with 
FAQs and education, or with some kind of revisiting and rethinking.  Or 
both.