there is definitely demand from other parts of the ecosystem for something like p2ts.
I agree with that BIP-360 (P2QRH) independent of its value to quantum resistance is a useful output type to have regardless.
If you’re going the route of adding post-quantum crypto as just opcodes, then I would strongly suggest renaming the p2qrh soft-fork simply pay-to-tapscript or pay-to-mast.
Under other circumstances I would be in favor of naming this pay-to-tapscript (P2TS) or pay-to-tapleaf (P2TL), but under the threat of a post-quantum world there is a strong rationale for naming this P2QRH. In a post-quantum world, we do not want user’s getting confused with P2TS (quantum safe output) and P2TR (quantum vulnerable output). P2QRH very clearly communicates that it is a quantum resistance output and distinguishes itself from P2TR.
This is also why we use Segwit version 3 rather than version 2. It makes the address contain an r, bc1(r)..., so “r for resistant”. This functions as a mnemonic and makes it easier for users to remember. Allowing users to, at a glance, determine if an output is Quantum-Resistant or not based it being bc1r… is helpful for avoiding accidents and letting users assess which if any of their addresses are vulnerable to long-exposure attacks. We need to help users not spend funds to to a bc1p… address if bc1p… addresses are vulnerable.