W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-i18n-mongolian@w3.org > April to June 2015

NNBSP-MVS Impact

From: Greg Eck <greck@postone.net>
Date: Mon, 29 Jun 2015 16:45:56 +0000
To: "public-i18n-mongolian@w3.org" <public-i18n-mongolian@w3.org>
Message-ID: <BN3PR10MB0321C8AD523DFF36C8832BA9AFAA0@BN3PR10MB0321.namprd10.prod.outlook.com>
With reference to http://r12a.github.io/scripts/mongolian/variants.html



As we start the discussion of Mongolian variants, I think it is

important to look at the means of implementing the NNBSP and the MVS

first. There is considerable variation here. If we can understand how

each font implements these two areas, it may bring understanding of

why our fonts differ in shaping in these two contexts. I am presenting

two documents for discussion dealing with the NNBSP and the MVS model.

*If we could have a description of how Harfbuzz, Apple and other

rendering engines interpret the character preceding/following the

NNBSP/MVS that would be helpful.* These descriptions will be added

into the NOTES section of each chart. The attached chart shows the

model used in the Microsoft Universal Shaping Engine.



Once we have agreed upon the two models, we will start with

The U+1820-A (initial/medial )and then proceed to the

other five similarly affected code-points U+1828 (medial/final), U+182C

(medial/final), U+182D (medial/final), U+1835 (medial/final), U+1836

(medial/final). A premise that I start with is that "Mongolian font

implementation does not always follow grammatical rules" - case in

point is the U+182C final which is not grammatical, but seems to be the

implementation of choice for two glyphs in most of the fonts on display.



Greg

Received on Monday, 29 June 2015 17:23:04 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 16:06:30 UTC