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

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).

Extensions are fine, but I'm quite pessimistic wrt. incompatible
changes and hereby predict confusion.

**Henrik

Reply