RE: NNBSP Impact

Hi Martin,

Thanks for the comment. No one has mentioned the ZWNJ yet. I have found that the ZWNJ is helpful in simulating context in Mongolian examples. But probably not what we need here in the case of glue-ing the suffixes together.

Greg


-----Original Message-----
From: Martin J. Dürst [mailto:duerst@it.aoyama.ac.jp] 
Sent: Wednesday, July 15, 2015 9:38 AM
To: Greg Eck; public-i18n-mongolian@w3.org
Subject: Re: NNBSP Impact

Hello Greg, others,

To me it looks like the situation for Mongolian suffixes is vaguely familiar to the situation with Persian suffixes that are written with a slight separation. What is used in Persian is the ZERO WIDTH NON-JOINER (ZWNJ). Although it's name includes "zero width", in all the example I have seen there is actually some white space between the characters, i.e. they are not glued together.

I'm sorry if this has already been considered.

Regards,   Martin.

On 2015/07/15 10:15, Greg Eck wrote:
> I am calling for an a new control character to replace the NNBSP (U+202F) for usage specifically in the Mongolian block (U+1800-18AF).
> Given our discussion over the past few weeks, it appears that the NNBSP is too generic to handle the specific needs of the Mongolian script in at least the following areas:
>
> -          NNBSP (“Narrow Non-Breaking SPace” actually is a space
>
> -          The control character needed in the Mongolian Script needs to be a non-space
>
> -          Word-count utility breaks as a result of the NNBSP presence
>
> -          Spell-checkers have difficulty parsing as the word breaks upon encountering the NNBSP
>
> -          Sort routines have the same difficulty
>
> -          Word-jumping (as with MS Word CTL-RIGHT/LEFT) breaks due to the space feature inherent to the NNBSP
>
> -          Cannot redefine the NNBSP as it is used as a bona fide space in other languages
>
> -          Future utilities as yet undefined
>
> -          Others?
> Means of implementation would be specific to the individual font developers.
> The features of the new character would be very similar to the MVS (U+180E).
> Suggested code-point: U+180F
> Suggested name: Mongolian Suffix Separator (to match the similar name 
> Mongolian Vowel Separator) Can I call for individuals to speak up on backing the notion and also for individuals who might not agree with the notion?
> There is a UTC meeting the end of July – if there is consensus, maybe we could get it on the docket?
> Greg
>

Received on Wednesday, 15 July 2015 02:09:55 UTC