Re: Additional diacritics (was: Phonological equivalent of...)

Being able to successfully transmit and read Unicode characters is different
from being able to easily *type* Unicode characters.  (To boldly split
infinitives that many have split before...) :)

I suggest that if one is adept at entering Unicode, one should feel free to
use IPA; most people on the list will see it properly.   But we still need a
fallback system.   I believe we should allow a mixture of full Unicode IPA
and plain ASCII-only CXS (or X-SAMPA or Z-SAMPA or whatever) as long as
there's not a conflict (where the same symbol means different things in the
two systems).  For instance, if I switch to the "US (international)"
keyboard, I can easily type things like "æ", so I don't need to use "&" for
that vowel; I can also show nasalization (ã), etc.  In general, the
easy-to-type characters for Western folks are in the Latin-1 character set.
(While we could perhaps devise a version of CXS that includes Latin-1
characters, I think it's simplest just to use the actual IPA symbols that we
can type easily, and fall back to the plain ASCII symbols for the rest).

Just my 2¢. :)