> From the point of view of Unicode, it is simpler: If the character is in use > or have had use, it should be included somehow.
That bar, to me, seems too low. Many things are only used briefly or in a private context that doesn't really require encoding. The hieroglyphs discussion is interesting because it presents them as living (in at least some sense) even though they're a historical script. Apparently modern Egyptologists are coopting them for their own needs. There are lots of emoji for professional fields. In this case since hieroglyphs are pictorial, it seems they've blurred the lines between the script and emoji. Given their field, I'd probably do the same thing. I'm not opposed to the character if Egyptologists use it amongst themselves, though it does make me wonder if it belongs in this set? Are there other "modern" hieroglyphs? (Other than the errors, etc mentioned earlier, but rather glyphs that have been invented for modern use). -Shawn
