Robert Palais wrote:
> Nelson Beebe recommended it since he figured unicode 3.2 would be
> the make or break for "getting it in use".
Speaking not officially, but as someone who has been lurking around here
awhile, the Unicode Technical Committee does not generally float trial
balloons. In other words, UTC doesn't look around for graphical symbols
which, on a theoretical basis might be "nice" or even "useful to someone",
and then encode them in the hope that they will become widely used. UTC
looks around for symbols that are in wide enough use to warrant being
encoded.
If this symbol starts showing up widely instead of "2 pi" in mainstream
high school math text books, then UTC will know it's time to encode it.
Until then, it's a curiosity.
Rick
