...
> Seems obvious to me: on the one hand, there should be a plain-ASCII
> version of any Unicode symbol; on the other, the ASCII version has
> shortcomings the Unicode one doesn't (namely the existing conflict between
> use as composition and use as module and now record qualifier). So, the
> Unicode one requires support but avoids weird parse issues.
OK. To me, the first hand is all you need - if there should be a
plain-ASCII version of any Unicode symbol anyway, then you can avoid
some trouble by just recognizing that you don't need Unicode symbols
(let alone with different parsing rules.)
What? The weird parsing rules are part of the ASCII one; it's what the Unicode is trying to *avoid*. We're just about out of ASCII, weird parsing is going to be required at some point.
I also wish to note that I have never been a member of the "anything beyond plain ASCII is fundamental evil" set; if we're going to think that way, just go back to BAUDOT and punched cards.