Why does the unicode Superscripts and Subscripts block not contain simple sequences of all letters?

Question

The arrangement of the characters that can be used as super-/subscript letters seems completely chaotic. Most of them are obviously not meant to be used as sup/subscr. letters, but even those which are do not hint a very reasonable ordering. In Unicode 6.0 there is now at last an alphabetically-ordered subset of the subscript letters h-t in U+2095 through U+209C, but this was obviously rather squeezed into the remaining space in the block and encompasses less than 1/3 of all letters.

Why did the consortium not just allocate enough space for at least one sup and one subscript alphabet in lower case?

Answer 1

The disorganization in the arrangement of these characters is because they were encoded piecemeal as scripts that used them were encoded, and as round-trip compatibility with other character sets was added. Chapter 15 of the Unicode Standard has some discussion of their origins: for example superscript digits 1 to 3 were in ISO Latin-1 while the others were encoded to support the MARC-8 bibliographic character set (see table here); and U+2071 SUPERSCRIPT LATIN SMALL LETTER I and U+207F SUPERSCRIPT LATIN SMALL LETTER N were encoded to support the Uralic Phonetic Alphabet.

The Unicode Consortium have a general policy of not encoding characters unless there's some evidence that people are using the characters to make semantic distinctions that require encoding. So characters won't be encoded just to complete the set, or to make things look neat.