Why an unnamed namespace is a "superior" alternative to static?

The section $7.3.1.1/2 from the C++ Standard reads:

The use of the static keyword is deprecated when declaring objects in a namespace scope; the unnamed-namespace provides a superior alternative.

I don't understand why an unnamed namespace is considered a superior alternative? What is the rationale? I've known for a long time as to what the standard says, but I've never seriously thought about it, even when I was replying to this question: Superiority of unnamed namespace over static?

Is it considered superior because it can be applied to user-defined types as well, as I described in my answer? Or is there some other reason as well, that I'm unaware of? I'm asking this, particularly because that is my reasoning in my answer, while the standard might have something else in mind.

• As you've mentioned, namespace works for anything, not just for functions and objects.
• As Greg has pointed out, static means too many things already.
• Namespaces provide a uniform and consistent way of controlling visibility at the global scope. You don't have to use different tools for the same thing.
• When using an anonymous namespace, the function/object name will get mangled properly, which allows you to see something like "(anonymous namespace)::xyz" in the symbol table after de-mangling, and not just "xyz" with static linkage.
• As pointed out in the comments below, it isn't allowed to use static things as template arguments, while with anonymous namespaces it's fine.
• More? Probably, but I can't think of anything else right now.