Phonetic schema

After thread Mofophonics on wikipediabeginning heeere

Stevertigo: 1. SAMPA, though based on IPA was designed for machine readability -- not for human readability. 2. The notion of a human-usable phonetic schema rests on the fact that most of the world - whether its Latin, pinyin, romaji, cyrillic, and just plain non-Anglo English -- the Roman alphabet is ubiquitous and differs rather little in terms of the way its used. 3. Regan's point is on the right track. -- a schema for using Sampa-like input, which is then simply changed to more readable characters -- these would probably be have to be as ubiquitous as possible as well -- as long as they borrow from the better ideas out there, and could still have a 1:1 conversion to sampa.

Precedents --

w:Roman alphabet, Vowel sounds are too flexible. w:SAMPA, Focuses too much on consonants -- which are rather ubiquitous. w:pinyin, Good basic foundation with exception of x ("tsh") w:romaji, Similar to pinyin phonetically (disregarding tones) -- Japanese is easy due to limited vowels. w:arabic language Arabic, despite being an w:abjad, has the benefit of w:harakat -- like Japanese, it defaults to rather nominal vowels.

I would like to suggest that we start using w:IPA as the standard transcription scheme. IPA is much more widely known than SAMPA, and now that most wikipedias are over on UTF-8, most of the technical reasons to use SAMPA has gone away. Arj 18:34, 19 Jan 2004 (UTC)

actually, en: and fr: are still on iso-8859-1 -- Tarquin 22:47, 20 Jan 2004 (UTC)

You are right, but Unicode entities can be encoded by HTML entities anyway. See for instance w:Hong Kong, w:Saddam Hussein. Arj 19:12, 30 Jan 2004 (UTC)

pin:/wo3

abcdefghijklmnopqrstuvwxyz 0123456789

(),-.:;ACDEFGHIJKLNOPQRSTUVWZ[]`abdefghijklmnopqrstuvwxyz

àáâäåæèéêëìíîïðñòóôõöøùúûüýÿþ× !"#$%&'()*+,-./:;<=>?@` {{|}~�€‚ƒ„…†‡ˆ‰Š‹ŒŽ”“ œ ð