On Thu, 8 Nov 2001 13:51:59 +0100, Henrik Theiling <[log in to unmask]> wrote: FLAMEFLAMEFLAMEFLAMEFLAMEFLAMEFLAMEFLAMEFLAMEFLAMEFLAMEFLAME FLAMEFLAMEFLAME neede I say morre??~!~ >Hi! > >Lars Henrik Mathiesen <[log in to unmask]> writes: >... >> Using these codes, you can for example include IPA-phonetic >> transcriptions of all kinds in e-mail messages or other forms of >> electronic exchange. Wherever an IPA character set is not >> available, X-SAMPA will provide a workable alternative. >> >> Straight from the keyboard of the designer. (It's not like that page >> is hard to locate, it's the first one Google finds when you search for >> X-SAMPA). >> >> > X-SAMPA is intended to be converted into actual IPA *automatically*, >> > or so I am told. >... >> >> Which is one reason I'm arguing so hard for using the standard version >> of X-SAMPA: I don't want people complaining to me that they get small >> caps OE's instead of æ's when they run someone else's pseudo-X-SAMPA >> through my converter. > >I very much prefer established standards, too!!! > >X-Sampa is well documented and random changes should not be done. For >the sake of standard conformance. Especially if they interfere with >something already defined differently in the standard. The only >permissible thing to do should be to *extend* the standard version if >it does not provide enough expressiveness. But, please(!), without >interfering with the established symbols. > >X-Sampa is an established quasi-standard, so there is really no need >for new attempts for other systems. A efficient way of expressing IPA >in ASCII is defined already. One definition should be enough. > >This is all for efficiency of communication, for preventing confusion >and for providing for automatic conversion. Remember what happens on >this list whenever someone tries to define their ConLang's phonemes >with English examples... > >**Henrik > >Oh yes: X-Sampa is not especially a bad standard. It fulfills its > purpose well. Because it maps IPA to ASCII, there are naturally > cosmetic flaws in the subjective view of many people. Still, > getting used to them is better than changing the standard. > >Oh yes: Kirshenbaum is a proposed standard as well, used by many > people, so we already have to deal with two ways of encoding. > More will definitely enlarge the chaos.