Is the scope of Unicode unchangeable for ever?

[Asmus Freytag]

Unicode has the concept of rejecting certain proposals with prejudice 
(even if these actual words are perhaps not used). That means, such 
proposals cannot be re-submitted unless a supermajority first decides to 
allow reconsidering the issue (again, that's the gist of it, for precise 
details go look it up on the website).

Such rejections with prejudice will limit the potential ways the scope 
of the Unicode standard can be fine tuned or "evolve" over time if you 
like that term.

This list isn't a committee meeting. Mentioning things on this list will 
not lead to a ruling from the technical committee. Instead, you might 
get a reasonable prediction of how the committee would react to a given 
proposal -- based on a shared understanding about the role of and aims 
for development of the Unicode Standard.

That kind of reaction is the best you can expect here. If people here 
suggest that something you are enamored of is out of scope for the 
Unicode Standard, it's useless to continue to pester the group with it. 
If you believe that you have a better insight into the committee's 
thinking than people who attend the meetings, your recourse is to submit 
a formal proposal, in which case there's a good probability that it will 
be rejected with prejudice.

It's not only useless and impolite to continue to beat a dead horse on 
this list, it's animal cruelty. And that can get you flicked.

A./