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.