@SnoopJ @rotopenguin Well, for example, if the people of China decide to invent a new hanzi, effectively now they just can't

Or they can, but they have to ask someone for permission. They'd have to do some complex set of steps with a PUA codepoint. Before computer encoding they could just draw it

@SnoopJ @rotopenguin There's also, and this is quite small but its fascinating to me, in UAX 31 Unicode comes up with a set of recommendations for which characters should be allowed in programming language variable names. They specifically bar variables from "clerical scripts".

In other words, without meaning to, the Unicode body backed themselves into being a body *holding the power to decide what is and is not a religion*

@mcc @rotopenguin I think I'd quibble about "without meaning to" but I concede that this is a funny/tragic reading of UAX #31's guidance

Wondering what the equivalent quip is for moving Bopomofo to the limited use set is 

@mcc @rotopenguin I *will* give them a lot of credit for not making UAX 31 a cop, though. I.e. the spec bending over backwards to accomodate "do whatever you want as long as you write it down somewhere" profiles

But so it goes, a standards document must define things, and they have the unenviable task of writing standards about something deeply political