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?