I'm not convinced that this isn't just post-hoc justification. All seven reasons boil down to "It's always been done this way". I don't see how "a" in the Lat

I'm not convinced that this isn't just post-hoc justification. All seven reasons boil down to "It's always been done this way". I don't see how "a" in the Latin alphabet as used in English is any different to the "a" in the Latin alphabet used in Polish - in particular they are rendered in the same way. Yet the article claims that even though Chinese and Japanese versions of characters now appear wildly different they still represent the same script so bad luck. Should the Unicode consortium be concerned with the glyphs or the semantics? Seems they are selectively doing both.