OverStrike control character

[James Kass]

On 2020-06-20 6:30 AM, abrahamgross--- via Unicode wrote:
> If epigraphers and numismaticians have the need for overstiking in plain text, isn't that reason enough to encode it? Unicode encoded many completely extinct scripts* and extinct characters in existing scripts, so adding the overstrike doesn't seem like a stretch at all.

Epigraphers and numismatists indeed preserve and exchange information 
about overstriking.  But they have existing conventions for doing so 
which apparently serve them well.  Similar arguments were made against 
the encoding of ancient scripts.  The scholars could just go on happily 
transliterating and transcribing their ancient texts.  When contact was 
established with various user groups some folks said they would continue 
using transliteration. But other folks said they would welcome and 
embrace the ability to store and exchange data in the actual original 
scripts.  Encoding the ancient scripts did no harm; the scholars 
preferring transliteration could keep on transliterating.  Ancient 
script encoding opened up new vistas for those who welcomed it, and I 
think this is especially true for undeciphered scripts.

So anyone seriously considering floating a proposal for an overstrike 
mechanism in Unicode would be well advised to establish contact with 
potential users to determine whether such a mechanism would see any 
actual use.