- From: Richard Ishida <ishida@w3.org>
- Date: Sat, 18 Apr 2015 16:47:58 +0100
- To: public-i18n-mongolian@w3.org, Greg Eck <greck@postone.net>, Andrew West <andrewcwest@gmail.com>, Aaron Bell <abell@microsoft.com>, "Andrew Glass (WINDOWS)" <Andrew.Glass@microsoft.com>
- CC: mgnasun@imu.edu.cn, 15847118536@163.com, huqitu@163.com
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