The Phaistos disk sort of makes sense to me since, single use or not, it's (probably) some sort of script. I'm not really any kind of expert in ancient scripts or Unicodery and this was a while back but the gist I got from the docs was something along the lines of 'no one-time/decorative uses' and the eye thing looked like it was exactly that. The submission was from an academic in Slavic studies of some sort, I thought about emailing them to ask but couldn't really come up with a way to phrase what amounts to some version of 'did you mess up Unicode or what?' in a non-dickish way.
I guess you could argue that a single discovered extant usage is not single use, it's quite possible that there will one day be a reconstruction of the script (maybe with some more samples being discovered).
You mean the eye thing? That's from Cyrillic, a baby of a script (as scripts go) that's still in wide use today. The o-as-eyes is a decorative flourish, a little visual pun - it's still just an o. An analogous thing would be a medieval Latin parchment of, let's say, the Lord's Prayer and it opened with a bigass P with vines, a gargoyle dancing to a cat shredding on the lute and a tiny caricature of the scribe's dad. If someone found that, we probably won't end up with ʟᴀᴛɪɴ ᴅᴀᴅ ᴊᴏᴋᴇ ᴘ in Unicode.
I think wisty was saying you could make the argument that the glyphs on the Phaistos disk were also used elsewhere, but we just don't have any samples.
Oh, sure, if it's about the Phaistos stuff - it sounds reasonable to have them in Unicode to me but much more importantly, I'm oversimplifying/butchering/misremembering whatever the actual Unicode rules are. You're better off just assuming I'm wrong about their details in important ways.
