Re: Notes on Mongolian variant forms

today i updated the page with many isolate forms that i omitted from the 
previous version.

i also fixed a few bugs along the way.


ri



PS: according to github there were 1,344 additions and 225 deletions,
  but github isn't showing a diff at 
https://github.com/r12a/r12a.github.io/commit/b324ee2ce726087bebea4561027d8b94efcb8e0f?diff=split 
- i'm not sure whether there just are too many changes, or it's still 
producing the diff

On 16/04/2015 11:44, Richard Ishida wrote:
> folks, fyi, i just finished extending the page
> Notes on Mongolian variant forms
> http://r12a.github.io/scripts/mongolian/variants
> to cover all remaining characters in the Mongolian Unicode block.
>
> the document compares variant glyph shapes proposed in three documents,
> and shows what shapes the following fonts produce: Mongolian Baiti, Noto
> Sans Mongolian, Mongolian White (+Writing, +Title, +Art).
>
> if anyone wants to provide information about what glyphs are displayed
> by other fonts (the conflicts are all that are needed) i will try to add
> that information to the charts.
>
> (more detailed description of the page in text follows below. See the
> page for links.)
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ======================================
>
> There is some confusion about which shapes should be produced by fonts
> for Mongolian characters. Most letters have at least one isolated,
> initial, medial and final shape, but other shapes are produced by
> contextual factors, such as vowel harmony.
>
> Unicode has a list of standardised variant shapes, dating from 27
> November 2013, but that list is not complete and contains what are
> currently viewed by some as errors.
>
> The original list of standardised variants was based on 蒙古文编码 by
> Professor Quejingzhabu in 2000.
>
> A new proposal was published on 20 January 2014, which attempts to
> resolve the current issues.
>
> The other factor in this is what the actual fonts do. Sometimes they
> follow the Unicode standardised variants list, other times they diverge
> from it. Occasionally a majority of implementations appear to diverge in
> the same way, suggesting that the standardised list should be adapted to
> reality.
>
> In this document I map the changes between the various proposals, and
> compare to various font implementations.
>
>

Received on Saturday, 18 April 2015 15:48:20 UTC