Re: RFC: New CXS symbol needed.

On Thu, 2005-11-03 at 13:58 -0500, Paul Bennett wrote:
> On Thu, 03 Nov 2005 09:01:35 -0500, Benct Philip Jonsson <bpj@...>
> wrote:
>
> > Tristan Mc Leay skrev:
> >> On Wed, 2005-11-02 at 16:43 -0500, Paul Bennett wrote:
> >>
> >>> The IPA have adopted their first new symbol in twelve years.
> >>>
> >>> http://www.sil.org/sil/news/2005/labiodental_flap.htm
> >>>
> >>> I propose /v`/ for the CXS representation,
>
> >>   I propose we wait until X-Sampa has a representation for it.
>
> > I agree.
>
> Why? What has X-SAMPA got to do with the future of CXS? True enough, it
> was the primary source of CXS symbols, but we made improvements. X-SAMPA
> contained bad ideas, which CXS put right. Should we automatically adopt
> X-SAMPA's idea for this symbol, regardless of whether it's good or not?
> That seems antithetical.
Read the rest of my post that you snipped. I said "I propose we
*wait*" (not "I propose we automatically adopt whatever X-Sampa has"). I
then said "If X-Sampa chooses something like /{\/, then sure, something
different is welcome". But until X-Sampa has something, why should we
automatically assume they'll do something stupid?

The real question is that if X-Sampa has a good and useful
representation, why should we have something different?

--
Tristan.