At 12:08 pm -0500 4/4/02, Andreas Johansson wrote:
>Raymond Brown wrote:
[snip]
>>
>>So, I ask three questions:
>>1. Am I right to avoid the constant use of the shift-key (unlike Lin and
>>X-SAMPA) ?
>
>In my mind definitely.
Yes, there seems to be general agreement on this one.
>>2. Is there any real objection to using not only the {2} and {4} of
>>texters, but also the other digit symbols to denote sound?
>
>Not really, but it'd be preferable not to use {1} because it looks too much
>like {l} in most fonts, and {0} because of the similarity with {O}.
Yes, I agree, at least with {1} ~ {l}. Indeed, some typewriters I used in
olden times before word-processors were around didn't include {1} - you had
to use {l} for both. If upper case letters are not used at all, then the
objection to {0} is lessened.
>>3. Is there any real reason not to use at least some of the
>>non-alphanumeric symbols?
>
>Most of the non-alphanummeric symbols require one to use the Shift or Alt Gr
>keys, so to include them as alphabetic characters pretty much kills the
>point in not using the upper case letters as extra graphemes.
Yes, I've been reminded of that.
>At least on my
>keyboard, the signs that doesn't invlove a extra key-stroke are {ß} and {+},
Now {+} is _shifted_ {=} on mine! I think that's normal on US and UK
keyboards.
>plus some on the nummeric keyboard, which I'd avoid because they'd require
>alot extra hand-movement when typing.
I agree - I'll ignore the numeric keypad.
>Also, you must needs use the apostrophe for something!
Yes, must use that :)
>It may be noted that the digits and non-alphamumericals don't have
>established cursive versions, wherefore it would be pain to write BrSc by
>hand if it included them in the orhtography, altho' this problem wouuld
>doubtlessly be solved over time.
I think it could be solved simply by giving 'approved' cursive forms from
the start.
Thanks for the observations.
Ray.
======================
XRICTOC ANESTH
======================