Disagree. A good example of the opposite mistake is the “Turkish i” problem. Basically they have a version of I with and without a dot — for both lowercase and uppercase — so algorithms that uppercase i to I break Turkish by removing the dot. If the Turkish i were a unique code point, the algorithms would not mess it up.
Then you have the german ß (sharp S) which does not have an upper case version. While ISO added one for whatever reason the official upper case is two letters consisting of either "SS" or "SZ". So you have three different ways to upper case ß one which is guaranteed to be wrong in any official context and two which lower case to "ss" or "sz" and not back to ß. That is one big ouch, especially to the ISO standard adding that invalid upper case variation. Languages are messy, best don't try to transform your input text in any way.
>It's used in typesetting sometimes, and if a character is used then it should have an encoding.
IMO there's little semantic difference so it doesn't deserve a character. We should have drawn the line between content and formatting, but it's too late and what we have now is emoji and one-use glyphs. [1]
This then makes the CJK unification decision even more perplexing. Surely Japanese characters should not be treated the same as Mandarin ones, even if they look the same?
I can't speak Japanese, only some Chinese, but I'm wondering if whether to use the (Chinese) Onyomi or (Japanese) Kunyomi pronunciation in Japanese is related in any way to whether the 山 comes first or last in the compound. If it comes last as in 富士山 "Fuji san", the grammar matches the Chinese, and so does the pronunciation ("Fushishan"). If it comes first as in 山登り "yamanoboru", the grammar is opposite to the Chinese (which would also have the 山 last, i.e. 跑山).
PS: Isn't り pronounced "ri" and る pronounced "ru"?
