RE: New Proposal Status

Hi Greg,

 

> I have added back the argument for the FVS MisMatch. Please look over for comment and typos.

We agree your comment for FVS MisMatch in the document. It is better to discuss this with UTC experts on this base.

 

>We can discuss the definition of the “FVS4” tomorrow. Issue at stake is the need to specify a U+1887_FifthVariant which is not a default positional glyph.

You are right, I have ignored this in my last mail.  But as the AliGali script, it is not the daily used language or script. 

The impaction is small, and I think Professor Quejingzhabu himself have also not find out all of AliGali variant completely yet.

I can predict that there will a lot kind of new variant appears in the future after researching new old books. 

In this case, we can  introduce to use VS1-VS16 (extremely small and special variant case ). 

Professor Quejingzhabu have already introduced VS1-VS16 for U1828_NA final form for distinguishing some old history book hand writing difference as I know.

And also I know he is saying that there are a lot of this kind of writings need to distinguish them and need to define more VS1-VS16 for Mongolian.

As my opinion, it is no matter he define how many this kind of new variant form even it is maybe one of the hand writers habit, and even it is only font issue not the encoding issue as I see.

 

But for modern Mongolian, it is typically important that all of the variant selection is clearly defined and it will be easy to develop as well as use.

 

>Also U+180A as brought up by Jirimutu.

Yes. I would like ask other member’s comment on this. Should we select easy one, small impaction one or difficult one, big impaction one ?

 

>Other issues … ?

We should list out the difference with Chinese standards for U1836_YA medial and U1838_WA medial if your reference of Chinese standard is GBT 26226-2010 and GBT 25914-2010.

We should also point out the Chinese standard ambiguous definition and  declare the our decision clearly in the New Proposal.

 

Thanks and Best Regards,

 

 

Jirimutu

===============================================================

Almas Inc. 

101-0021 601 Nitto-Bldg, 6-15-11, Soto-Kanda, Chiyoda-ku, Tokyo

E-Mail:  <mailto:jrmt@almas.co.jp> jrmt@almas.co.jp   Mobile : 090-6174-6115

Phone : 03-5688-2081,   Fax : 03-5688-2082

 <http://www.almas.co.jp/> http://www.almas.co.jp/    <http://www.compiere-japan.com/> http://www.compiere-japan.com/

 <http://www.mongolfont.com/> http://www.mongolfont.com/

===============================================================

 

From: Greg Eck [mailto:greck@postone.net] 
Sent: Thursday, January 14, 2016 2:22 AM
To: Erdenechimeg Myatav <erdeely@gmail.com>; Jirimuto <jrmt@almas.co.jp>; Badral (badral@bolorsoft.com) <badral@bolorsoft.com>
Cc: public-i18n-mongolian@w3.org
Subject: RE: New Proposal Status

 

Hi Erdenechimeg, Badral, Jirimutu,

 

I have added back the argument for the FVS MisMatch. Please look over for comment and typos.

We can discuss the definition of the “FVS4” tomorrow. Issue at stake is the need to specify a U+1887_FifthVariant which is not a default positional glyph.

Also U+180A as brought up by Jirimutu.

Other issues … ?

 

Thanks all for your good comments,

Greg

 

 

From: Erdenechimeg Myatav [mailto:erdeely@gmail.com] 
Sent: Sunday, January 10, 2016 11:57 PM
To: Greg Eck <greck@postone.net <mailto:greck@postone.net> >
Cc: public-i18n-mongolian@w3.org <mailto:public-i18n-mongolian@w3.org> 
Subject: Re: New Proposal Status

 

Hi Greg,

 

I have looked at the proposal and I have a couple of issues with it.

 

1) Regarding the discussion about the MVS, I strongly agree with Jirimutu that the treatment of MVS should be uniform, i.e. the logic should be the same whatever the preceding letter.  Furthermore, Mongolians say that the letter immediately preceding the MVS is in final form. I therefore feel that it is wrong to define the forms of NA/QA/GA/YA/JA (NB I also include JA here) that precede MVS as middle forms – they should be final forms. (In the old proposal these forms were included twice, once as middle form and once as final form. This is definitely wrong! But the final forms should be kept and the middle forms removed, not the other way round.)

 

2) Similarly, the form of the letter A that follows NNBSP is always said to be initial form. (More generally, all forms of all letters that have the “crown” element are considered to be initial forms.) So I think that what you have in the proposal as the third medial form of A should in fact be the second initial form. (Again in the old proposal this form was included twice, once as middle form and once as initial form, which is also definitely wrong. So in this case the initial form should be kept and the middle form removed, not the other way round.)

 

One other point I’d like to raise: in several cases one of the variant forms of a letter has the same glyph as the base form in a given position (e.g. the first and fourth medial forms of the letter I), the identical variant form being presumably used to override the font rules and display the base form instead of any variant. I wonder if it might be better to generalise this, e.g. by introducing a variant selector which always selects the base form of a letter irrespective of what the actual letter is? This way it would be possible to get the base form in any context whatever variant the font rules actually produced. 

 

Best wishes,

Erdenechimeg

 

 

 

On Tue, Jan 5, 2016 at 3:12 PM, Greg Eck <greck@postone.net <mailto:greck@postone.net> > wrote:

Greetings in the New Year …

 

Here is a status on the NP:

We are current on the Ishida Font Comparator Site.

We are current on the DS01 (as attached).

I am looking at calling in at the next Unicode Conference in late January.

There is a document listing changes that I am preparing now – basically covering the yellow/magenta/grey items in the DS01.

The version of DS01 being submitted will see the grey items either disappear or turn magenta.

I am waiting to hear back from Professor Quejingzhabu on some specific questions related to the Chinese Standard.

I just realized that I forgot to mark the proposed changes on the two Baludas (U+1885/6) and will do that on the submitted DS01.

 

Can I ask from several of you:

Kamal, Badral, Jirimutu – have you had time to look over the items in the DS01 in yellow/magenta? Do you have any comments/concerns? Can I say that you are in agreement with the document? 

 

Everyone: You might want to take another look at the Font Comparator Site also under your font column and just make sure that we are representing your font performance correctly. If you have corrections, you can submit them directly to me. I will collect them and pass them as one bundle to Richard I.

 

Thanks,
Greg