Does the large number of sequences cause any problems? It is only a few codepoints, most (all?) of which already exist, so it isn't exhausting the code space. T

Does the large number of sequences cause any problems? It is only a few codepoints, most (all?) of which already exist, so it isn't exhausting the code space. They are being combined in manners that are already used in unicode. And of course characters can already be combined in a much larger number of combinations. But combining codepoints into graphemes is different than combining graphemes into text. I'm not as clear on the implications of that. Is it really necessary to list out each possible grapheme? Certainly for software to render it, it will need to be able to map them to glyphs in the font, and enumerating them all is one way of doing that, but I can't imagine that being a common approach. I would think that software that cares would add a small special case to handle placement of the individual composed glyphs, and software that doesn't would fallback to showing each glyph adjacent, rather than organized in a block with children in front. There might also be software that assumes an upper limit on how many codepoints can form a grapheme.