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

RE: NNBSP-MVS Impact

From: <jrmt@almas.co.jp>
Date: Wed, 8 Jul 2015 08:27:27 +0900
To: "'Badral S.'" <badral@bolorsoft.com>, <public-i18n-mongolian@w3.org>
Message-ID: <001a01d0b90c$7d1be2b0$7753a810$@almas.co.jp>
Hi Badral,

 

>Actually, the separated A|E is only used under N | G | H | M | L | Y | R |
W in modern Mongolian, maybe additionally have { J + MVS A | E } for only
one word. 

>but someone raises there are additional { S | SH + MVS A|E}  in ancient
Mongolian. 

In some case the { W + MVS A|E}, have to be handled as { O | U | OE | UE +
MVS + A | E } according to some linguistic professionals.

 

For example , LINGHU-A, CINU-A etc.

 

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/

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

 

 

 

From: jrmt@almas.co.jp [mailto:jrmt@almas.co.jp] 
Sent: Wednesday, July 8, 2015 7:53 AM
To: 'Badral S.'; public-i18n-mongolian@w3.org
Subject: RE: NNBSP-MVS Impact

 

Hi Badral,

 

>This symbol is used only before final variant of U1820 (A) and U1821 (E) to
illustrate ORKHITS. Is it necessary to consider any prefixes? NO.

Actually, the separated A|E is only used under N | G | H | M | L | Y | R | W
in modern Mongolian, maybe additionally have { J + MVS A | E } for only one
word. 

but someone raises there are additional { S | SH + MVS A|E}  in ancient
Mongolian. 

 

In my personal opinion, I don't want to see the appearance of other
characters followed by MVS + A|E shows unreadable Mongolian. 

It will destroy the original Mongolian script's harmony even if it is a
wrong word.

It seems an accident like the pen ink breaks suddenly. 

 

In my personal opinion, all of this irregular appearance of MVS should be
filtered and , it should be same with  the original forms.

For example  { I + M + T + MVS + A|E  } = { I + M + T + A|E } .

 

It is just my personal opinion. It seems most of Mongolian can bear it in
their mind.

 

>The only thing, we should consider for MVS is this character never be
classified into space or bounder class! It should be in formatter, joiner or
other in rendering systems.
I agree this. But actually, the MVS is classified in Space now. I am not
sure who is the proper person to raise this issue to correct it.

 

For example, according to following URL

 <http://www.fileformat.info/info/unicode/char/180E/index.htm>
http://www.fileformat.info/info/unicode/char/180E/index.htm

 

The Java properties defines.

Character.isSpaceChar() Yes 

Character.isWhitespace() Yes

 

 

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/

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

 

 

 

From: Badral S. [mailto:badral@bolorsoft.com] 
Sent: Wednesday, July 8, 2015 12:39 AM
To: public-i18n-mongolian@w3.org
Subject: Re: NNBSP-MVS Impact

 

Hi all,
I don't understand, why MVS is so complicated to handle?
This symbol is used only before final variant of U1820 (A) and U1821 (E) to
illustrate ORKHITS. Is it necessary to consider any prefixes? NO. It makes
also no sense FVS1, FVS2, FVS3 after MVS because we don't have any variant
of MVS. If FVS1-3 occured before MVS, these are only relevant to the
previous letter of that characters. The only thing, we should consider for
MVS is this character never be classified into space or bounder class! It
should be in formatter, joiner or other in rendering systems.
Please redirect me, if I am wrong.

regards,
Badral

On 07.07.2015 14:24, jrmt@almas.co.jp wrote:

Hi Greg Eck,

 

Thank you very much for your clarification.

I understand your explanation for NNBSP status. 

I think there is three direction to select. 

1.       Add some supplementary definition to NNBSP to fit the Mongolian
Encoding requirement. (maybe it is impossible because of the other
languages)

2.       Replace NNBSP usage in Mongolian with other Mongolian Block
character, as I mentioned for example U+180F

3.       Bear the restriction of the NNBSP usage and consider to use NNBSP
in Mongolian encoding. 

(We need to persuade each application one by one to fit Mongolian
requirements just like Dr. Quejingzhabu had done with Microsoft)

Anyone have good idea or solution to resolve the issue ?

 

Anyway we need to continue to discuss the model to solve the Mongolian
Suffix Model either use NNBSP or other character.

 

Let me send out my NNBSP Model Discussion paper to all members. In the
discussion paper, I have included the NNBSP replacement proposals as well.

If you do not agree it, just please ignore it and skip into following
discussion contents.

I am also updated the MVS Model discussion paper and included Greg's
response as well as my comments in it.

 

Please let me know if anyone have any question about it.

 

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/

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

 

 

 

From: Greg Eck [mailto:greck@postone.net] 
Sent: Tuesday, July 7, 2015 5:57 PM
To: public-i18n-mongolian@w3.org
Cc: 'Behdad Esfahbod'
Subject: RE: NNBSP-MVS Impact

 

Mr. Jirimutu,

 

I am not the one to answer about redefining the NNBSP since it is defined by
the Unicode Consortium.  However, in reading the past posts from Badral and
others, it appears that redefinition would be problematic at this point as
it is tied to other languages such as French and Russian - stabilization
would be the issue. Can someone else answer this question as stated below?

 

I can represent Dr. Quejingzhabu in his request that upper-level layout
features in MS Word dealing with the NNBSP have been broken for some time. I
think we had a discussion on this at least two years back. His bug report
dealt with word-count across NNBSP-bounded suffixes, along with
CTL-RIGHT/CTL-LEFT word skipping across the same NNBSP-bounded suffixes.

 

Greg

 

Are there other problems that other some of you have found in dealing with
the current implementation of the NNBSP? Let's see if we can put together a
list of problems found in the current NNBSP implementation .

Spell-checking - Badral

Xxx - Mr. Jirimutu

Word-count - Prof. Quejingzhabu

Word-skip (CTL-RIGHT/LEFT) - Prof. Quejingzhabu

.

 

 

 

From: jrmt@almas.co.jp [mailto:jrmt@almas.co.jp] 
Sent: Monday, July 6, 2015 9:17 AM
To: Greg Eck; public-i18n-mongolian@w3.org
Cc: 'Behdad Esfahbod'
Subject: RE: NNBSP-MVS Impact

 

Hi Greg Eck,

 

Thank you very much. I appreciate your attention.

I will prepare my discussion paper for NNBSP include our AAT implementation
logic.

We are discussing in our team how to propose for NNBSP. I will send our
discussion paper in one or two days.

 

As Mr. Badral's mail, the NNBSP is the big problem in the Mongolian
Encodings now. 

Before explain our solution of NNBSP on AAT, 

I would like to ask if is it possible to redefine the Suffix Joiner ?

 

If it is possible to redefine the Suffix Joiner, I would like to propose
U+180F to be the Mongolian Suffix Joiner.

That will be pretty on the code structure and simple on the handle.

 

If it is impossible to redefine, we have to use NNBSP, I would like to
participate into the discussion.

 

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/

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

 

 

 

 

From: Greg Eck [mailto:greck@postone.net] 
Sent: Monday, July 6, 2015 1:17 AM
To: jrmt@almas.co.jp; public-i18n-mongolian@w3.org
Cc: 'Behdad Esfahbod'
Subject: RE: NNBSP-MVS Impact

 

Mr. Jirimutu,

Thank you for the explanation on AAT's handling of the character preceding
the MVS.

Please do let us know how the character preceding the NNBSP is handled also
- that will be very helpful.

Greg

 

 

From: jrmt@almas.co.jp [mailto:jrmt@almas.co.jp] 
Sent: Monday, July 6, 2015 12:04 AM
To: Greg Eck; public-i18n-mongolian@w3.org
Cc: 'Behdad Esfahbod'
Subject: RE: NNBSP-MVS Impact

 

Hi Greg Eck,

 

I would like to send my some discussion about the MVS today. 

I will follow up the NNBSP soon if I have any comment.

 

>It would be nice to find out whether Apple rendering systems follow suit. 

>If anyone knows of an Apple engineer that we could ask, 

>I will follow up on the matter. Or if there are other rendering systems
>that we should consider, please bring them up.

 

We created the Apple AAT Font on our site and Apple handle this as an static
machine stream.

In the case all of the rules we defined working well on Mac OS X and iOS
system.

The MVS model processing on our AAT font is that 

the string <MONG_INITIAL><MONG_MEDIAL>< MONG_LETTER ><MVS><U+1820 | U+1821>
where MONG is the range U+1820 - U+18AA, 

Our font will tag the MONG_LETTER as <fina>  only if the <MONG_LETTER> is
one of <U+1828-n>, <U+182C-n>, <U+182D-g>,

<U+182E-m>, <U+182F-l>, <U+1830-s>, <U+1831-sh>, <U+1835-j>, <U+1836-y>,
<U+1837-r>, <U+1838-w> as well as 

<U+1823-o>, <U+1824-u>, <U+1825-oe>, <U+1826-ue>. Which Is the Mongolian MVS
requested characters. 

 

Note: Apple system site had one bug on the Mac OS X 10.8-10.10.2 and iOS
8.0-8.2

rdar://problem/18483089> REGRESSION: iOS8 did not able to correctly
rendering Mongolian vowel separator(180E)

this bug had been fixed on Mac OS X 10.10.3 and iOS 8.3 now.

 

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/

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

 

 

 

 

From: Greg Eck [mailto:greck@postone.net] 
Sent: Saturday, July 4, 2015 11:34 PM
To: public-i18n-mongolian@w3.org
Cc: Behdad Esfahbod
Subject: RE: NNBSP-MVS Impact

 

Behdad Esfahbod, as the Harfbuzz designer,  was kind enough to answer my
questions of how Harfbuzz handles the MVS/NNBSP context. He confirmed my
understanding that Harfbuzz follows the Microsoft Universal Shaping Engine
in the following . Thank you Behdad .

 

>>>>> 

Given the string <MONG_INITIAL><MONG_MEDIAL>< MONG_LETTER
><NNBSP><MONG_SUFFIX> where MONG is the range U+1820 - U+18AA, Harfbuzz
applies the <fina> tag applied to MONG_LETTER

The same processing holds for <MONG_INITIAL><MONG_MEDIAL>< MONG_LETTER
><MVS><U+1820 | U+1821>

>>>>> 

 

It would be nice to find out whether Apple rendering systems follow suit. If
anyone knows of an Apple engineer that we could ask, I will follow up on the
matter. Or if there are other rendering systems that we should consider,
please bring them up.

 

The DS00 charts have been updated. I am also attaching two files that have
been helpful to me in considering the range of usage of the MVS / NNBSP.
DS04 deals with MVS usage. DS05 deals with NNBSP usage.
Comments/corrections/questions are welcome.

 

Let's go on to consider six cases where the MVS/NNBSP affect the shaping
behavior of the character immediately preceeding/following the MVS/NNBSP -
U+1820, U+1828, U+182C, U+182D, U+1835, and U+1836.

 

Greg Eck

 





-- 
Badral Sanlig, Software architect
www.bolorsoft.com | www.badral.net
Bolorsoft LLC, Selbe Khotkhon 40/4 D2, District 11, Ulaanbaatar
Received on Tuesday, 7 July 2015 23:27:52 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 16:07:04 UTC