I totally appreciate the desire for more semantic encoding. I mean, it would be a dream if every sentence was semantically delimited, if every word was annotated with which hyphenation pattern it should follow for splitting across lines (when there are multiple), and whether the capital letter at the start of a sentence should remain capital even when converted to lowercase, because it's a capitalized proper noun. I could go on.
But that's not what Unicode is for. The apostrophe situation is just one of 100 things I could think of off the top of my head. Unicode encodes characters, not semantics. And this is by design, because people don't input, or want to input, semantics -- they just want to type something that looks right. Something other people can read, not something computers can semantically parse.
So we have a bunch of heuristic and AI and manual tools we use to try to annotate things semantically, and we put that information at the level of something like XML, not Unicode. Which is infinitely more flexible, because you can define and use whatever semantics you want, not limited to whatever the Unicode body decided.
If KeenQuotes gets apostrophes right 99.9% of the time, then just use that to automatically analyze all your input text and then store and process it in some kind of XML notation, like "Peter’s" or "Peter’s" or "Peter’s" or something. Unicode is the wrong level of abstraction.
