Again, it is seen as a political tool (pro-West or pro-Russia), when Cyrillic is technically better suited (there is certainly history as well, but that's very mixed up in the region).
Again, I am saying this as someone who has worked to implement things like full-text search, collation (lexical ordering/sorting) algorithms and tables, fonts and ligatures, functions like uppercase/titlecase/lowercase...
Eg. an already complex Unicode Collation Algorithm tables can never support exceptions with digraphs like "konjukcija" (nj is usually a digraph, but not here), etc.
It's the kind of legacy cleanup you love to see :-)
Ђ/ђ
Ћ/ћ
Љ/љ
Њ/њ
Џ/џ
Ј/ј
Various diacritical marks, digraph, a jod... What makes this Cyrillic more unambiguous than the Latin equivalents?
Compare with:
Š/S (Š = S + diacritic)
Nj (this "letter" is made up of two other letters)
Okay, you got me, these don't have diacritics, but other Slavic languages do. Unicode committee decided that some of these are separate letters (Ѓ, Й, Ё etc.) and some are not (Ў), but still doesn't make these "trivially provable to suit Slavic languages better".
> Nj (this "letter" is made up of two other letters)
Indeed it is. Invented in 1818. E.g. Russian uses two "нь" for the same thing.
My point is, even if I may confuse my linguistic terminology from time to time, is... How does all this make Cyrillic "trivially provable" to be better suited for Slavic languages than Latin script? It's all the same: invent new letters or new letter combinations, or slap a few diacritics on top. And when that is not enough, borrow from Latin. E.g., j in Serbian, ї in Ukrainian and й in Russian for the same sound.
