samskRta transliteration

The first thing one notices when one tries to write samskRta, eg. a name like Ramakrishnan (raamakR^iShNan - ITRANS) in english is that there is too much room for mispronunciation. The reason being that english has very few letters in its alphabet to unambiguously convey the right pronunciation for not only samskRta words but also words of its own. Here I don't wish to argue about the not-so-intelligent and not-so-not-very-dumb character of the english language. I will first make an attempt to motivate the necessity of a samskRta transliteration scheme. The reasons are many. Today english is being accepted as a common language of communication all around the world with a few exceptions. Especially in India, land where almost all of samskRta works of interest originated, english has almost become the language of scientific research. This when combined with a new found global interest in samskRta works (this interest has been at least 100 years old but not older than western science itself) gives rise to the need of typing samskRta using standard english keyboards. Even engines like LaTeX (at least the versions I have come across) interpret only english script to produce devanAgri output. Usage of an english keyboard has almost become indispensable. So there is a need for developing a scheme to write samkRta using the letters of english alphabet which can be read by anyone unambiguously. Also for engines like LaTeX to interpret english alphabet to give devanAgri output one needs to find a unique map from single or bunch of english letters to samkRta letters.
Many transliteration schemes have been formulated for serving this purpose. I think that the transliteration schemes available (atleast the standard ones I have come across especially International Alphabet of Sankrit Transliteration - IAST and ITRANS) for writing samkRta in english are very cumbersome to write. I'll mainly argue against the IAST, ITRANS and Harvard-Kyoto schemes here. One can refer to the following links for knowing the schemes
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IAST
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ITRANS
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harvard-Kyoto
Firstly the IAST scheme is difficult to write by hand and impossible to write using most keyboards due to its unnecessary dots and hats above and below the letters. Even ITRANS with its RRi or R^i seems very stupid to write. Why write RRi or R^i when you can get done with just R? If the scheme suggested here is adopted, there would be no need for these hats, dots, ^ etc. The whole of samkRta script can be written unambigously just with letters in english alphabet. One of the key features of the english script, that is neglected in IAST, is the fact that english alphabet has small and capitalized letters. Now one possible motivation for this is capitalization of proper names. Here we are trying to write samskRta. When in samskRta there is no artificial restraint of capitalization of first letters of proper names then why impose that unnecessarily while writing samskRta names? Now one could argue that if there is an english and a samskRta name occuring in one sentence then the first letter of the english name would be capitalized and the samkRta one might not be. I don't see any problem with writing - Albert and rAmakRSNan were good friends. Also the purpose of introducing these transliterations is to write works in samskRta in english. These works normally won't have any non-samskRta terms. Now one could ask what if one reads even Albert in the above sentence with samkRta transliteration then this issue is not resolved even in others. To resolve this one could just put (e) before Albert to alert the reader that Albert is to be pronounced as an english name eg - (e)Albert and rAmakRSNan were good friends.
In my opinion the structures of IAST and ITRANS are not very logical and intuitive. For example why should one put those hats above and dots below the letters when one can easily do away with them by some simple thinking? The scheme used here would be intuitive to any logical person who wants to minimize his efforts in writing samkRta using english eg - lets analyze g (as in gopAla) and G (as in nIlameGashyAma). Now one might find addition of h after g for writing G more intuitive. Clearly one has to put more effort in writing gh (atleast while writing with hand) than G. Now a problem comes in extending this to d (as in dAmodara) and dh (as in mAdhava). Here we don't propose use of D for dh (as in mAdhusudana) because then one would have to use dh for D (as in makarakunDaladhara). Here we choose D and not dh for jaDaBarata because dh sounds closer to dh in shrIdhara than D (as in harimIDe). The reasoning can be extended for exception in t, th, T and Th usage similarly. Usage of sh for sh (as in hRSIkesha) is also an exception to the extention indicated above. The reason for this is if one uses S for sh (as in keshava) then one is left with sh or Sh for S (as in viSNu). Now the reason for rejecting usage of sh for S (as in kRSNa) is that sh is normally used by most people for shrI. If one uses Sh for S (as in kRSNa) then one has to spend more effort in the long run to write S for sh (as in shrIvAmana) and Sh for S (as in kRSNa) using a keyboard since he would have to unnecessarily capitalize s in both S and Sh. Instead if one uses sh for sh (as in shrIrAma) and S for S (as in kRSNa) then one circumvents the above mentioned problems.
When we come to usage of ng for (pangkajanABa) its more natural to use ng as it sounds closer to the letter needed. What we mean by sounding closer is that when one tries to pronounce n (as in nandalAlA) and g (as in gajendravaradA) together one hits the sound of ng (as in pangkajanABa). Usage of gny (as in yagnyanArAyaNa) is because again when one tries to speak g (as in govinda), n as in (ananta) and y (as in acyuta) together one hits something very close to the required sound.
The disadvantages of Harvard-Kyoto scheme (which is the closest among the three to ours) is the usage of G for gn, z for sh etc. Though these are easier to write these usages are extremely counter-intuitive. The reasons refuting usage of kh for K (as in Harvard-Kyoto) have already been mentioned above. The only motivation which remains now in using these above mentioned schemes is that they are accepted all over the world. Clearly that is not a reason to prevent one from inventing and using his own scheme which is more logical and easy to write.
A few words for comparison of schemes (I'm not even attempting to write IAST here)
ITRANS - kR^iShNaaShTami
Harvard-Kyoto - kRSNASTami
Ours - kRSNASTami

ITRANS - shriimadbhaagavatam
Harvard-Kyoto - zrImadbhAgavatam
Ours - shrImadBAgavatam