Print

Print


Mark J. Reed wrote:


>> NB that I normally detest the use of _-h_ as a
>> Jack of all trades digraph maker, including it's
>> use as a palatalization marker and fricativization
>> marker (in descending order of horrificness), but
>> *given the utilitarian purposes stated* the above
>> would be an improvement on the present intercaps.
>> (Of course _drh_ is actually horrible, but as a
>> signpost for "something special inbetween 'd' and
>> 'r'" it'd do its job. Probably you'd get [d`r\`]
>> most of the time, but it'd at least contain a
>> [d`]!)

<-h> for digraphs only really bothers me when standalone <h> is in 
use.  One reason I prefer the X-system for Esperanto is that <x> is 
not a part of the E-o alphabet so it causes no ambiguities.

I prefer to avoid them unless really necessary but I'm torn between 
using digraphs vs. diacritics.  Diacritics work better visually, but 
machinability (encoding issues, fonts, keyboard drivers, etc.) makes 
them a big hassle.  Unicode takes care of most of the encoding 
issues, but it's far from being universally implemented.  I'd love 
to find an all-inclusive Unicode font.  The closest out there is 
Code200 which is too fugly for most use.  Someday when I get a lot 
of free time I'll make some more kitchen-sink keyboard drivers to 
cover more scripts and characters.