bear <xxxxxx@sonic.net> writes:

> On closer inspection, this turns out to be a bad idea;
> SO is not, after all, linguistically neutral; the category
> is used for what appears to be some fairly fundamental
> stuff in the CJK and Kangxi sections and looks like it
> might be an impediment to writers of those languages
> if not permitted in identifiers.  Maybe we should just
> consider the dingbats themselves.

The dingbats should be allowed in identifiers.  A bridge system would
quite naturally have identifiers that included the suit symbols, for
example.