If you really want random opinions on this, then I would say that I wouldn’t mind #2 and #3 in the language, as part of support for OCaml programs readily being able to manipulate text written in other languages. For #1, #4, and #5 and fancy symbols in code I would prefer legal and civil penalties and a public registry of those convicted of having engaged in such anti-social behavior.
I expect though that I’ll see fancy symbols in code for #1, #4 and #5, because it’s actually sufficient for a build system to have a translation step. OCaml’s own lack of support doesn’t much matter except as far as the translation step eventually becoming unnecessary. Of course, if everyone who would be interested in fancy symbols in code persists in framing their interests as including text written in other languages, they’ll persist in not seeing build system extensions as a path that is open to them, since it is obviously an absurd answer to the other issue.
If you are more interested in an idea of what to expect from releases of ocaml, try searching for prior discussion on the mailing lists. That’s not a guarantee but it can inform your expectations.