On Feb 8, 2007, at 5:52 AM, Henrik Theiling wrote: > Hi! > > Mark J. Reed writes: >> I disagree on both counts. The only reason CXS exists is that we >> were >> dissatisfied, as a group, with X-SAMPA. We could just use X-SAMPA >> and be >> done with it, but as long as we have our own version, there's no >> reason not >> to extend it and even change it. Arbitrary changes should be >> avoided, of >> course, but logical ones should be adopted if there's enough support. > > Well, well, *please* add a version number to CXS when changing it now! > > And *please* add a remark to all your posts which one you use. With > /v\/ vs. /p\/, this is not really obvious (in contrast to the > different accent marks, which are quite obvious immediately). I might be alone here, but I find it confusing that " can mean either primary or secondary stress. I suppose it should be obvious, if there are two different stress marks in a word, that one is primary and the other is secondary; but it isn't intuitive to me that ' is primary and " is secondary, since I'm more used to X-SAMPA, in which " is primary. (I suppose a mnemonic would be that ' looks like a "prime" mark and " looks like a "double prime"... but still, my X-SAMPA familiarity predisposes me to first think the " marks primary accent, which I then must "correct".) > > Extensions are fine, but I'm quite pessimistic wrt. incompatible > changes and hereby predict confusion. > > **Henrik Off topic: I have looked but haven't found any Unicode character for a specifically seriffed <a>, i.e. the symbol for /a/. In the font I use for email, the regular ASCII <a> looks identical to the "script <a>", both looking like the symbol for /A/. Since I assume the actual shape of the <a> glyph is up to the font designer, I would figure Unicode would have a slot somewhere for an <a> unambiguously with serif. Does anyone know if it in fact does? If not, has there been any proposal or discussion to include one?