FW: Your statement on Identifiers and Unicode 7.0.0

[JFC Morfin]

Dear John, and Pierrick,
it seems that that the question we all ask ourselves to understand 
John is well introduced by the final remark.

At 14:52 08/02/2015, Pierrick wrote:
>At 21:33 04/02/2015, John C Klensin wrote:
>>a "no combining mark" system will not work for many uses with Latin 
>>script in Unicode or would require a _huge_ code set for many other scripts.
>
>This seems clear enough.
>
>>Similarly, while "no combining characters" will work well for 
>>writing the Arabic language in Arabic script, it will work much
>>less well for several other languages written in that script
>
>This seems clear enough.
>
>>  unless a lot of other precomposed characters are added.
>
>This seems clear enough.
>
>>If one considers what Unicode and IDNA call "joiners" to be 
>>combining characters -- they certainly are in the sense that they 
>>modify the effects and sometimes the shape of the characters 
>>associated with the code points that precede or follow them--
>
>This seems clear enough this is why they have to be differently supported.
>
>>then even a wider selection of precomposed characters is insufficient.
>
>This is something I do not understand.

The best is to ask him.

John, is it because you think this would result in too many Unigraph 
code points, or for another reason we do not see/understand?
Thanks and best.
jfc