Re: NNBSP Impact

Hi all,

All MVS, NNBSP, ZWJ, ZWNJ is needed in Traditioan Monglian, I think.

I make 3 tables about MVS, NNBSP, ZWNJ and wrote short comments.

This may be make a sence.

SiqinBilige.


On 2015/07/17 18:08, Martin J. Dürst wrote:
> Hello Jirimutu,
>
> On 2015/07/17 16:05, jrmt@almas.co.jp wrote:
>> Hi Greg and Martin,
>>
>>
>>
>> I would like to remind that the ZWNJ and ZWJ had been used in Mongolian.
>>
>> ZWJ – used for separately display Mongolian Init, Medi, and Fina form.
>>
>> ZWNJ – used for display one word with their isolate form without space.
>
> As the text in the Unicode standard explains, ZWNJ and ZWJ are used 
> for this also in Arabic/Persian. They are also used in Persian for 
> separating suffixes (Arabic doesn't have separable suffixes).
>
>
>> For this reason, we should not use ZWNJ for Mongolian Suffix Separator.
>
> There may be good reasons for not using ZWNJ as a Mongolian Suffix 
> Separator, but the above alone are not convincing (not to me, and most 
> probably also not to the Unicode Technical Committee).
>
> So it would be good to find more clearcut reasons for why ZWNJ doesn't 
> work (or cannot be made to work) as a Mongolian Suffix Separator, or 
> to verify more thoroughly that there are no such reasons.
>
> Regards,  Martin.
>
>
>> 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: Thursday, July 16, 2015 1:55 AM
>> To: Martin J. Dürst; public-i18n-mongolian@w3.org
>> Subject: RE: NNBSP Impact
>>
>>
>>
>> Hi Martin,
>>
>> Thank you for your good comments. I have taken some time to review 
>> Chapter 23 of the Unicode Standard 7.0 as referenced below. I can see 
>> your point somewhat in the possibility of the ZWNJ taking the place 
>> of the NNBSP - even though it is a bit non-intuitive. I guess I am 
>> against the idea for two reasons. The first is that as the name 
>> implies, there is actually to be no space emitted by the rendering 
>> system - it is designed to have zero width. However the 
>> NNBSP_replacement needs to have space (while at the same time not 
>> being space). I say this recognizing the statement that some fonts 
>> render the ZWNJ with space. The second reason that I would not go for 
>> the idea is that time will probably tell us that we need a character 
>> specific to the Mongolian block that we can specifically taylor to 
>> the needs of this separation between a STEM+Suffix OR a 
>> Suffix+Suffix. If we go for another character that is 
>> multi-functional as the ZWNJ is and it fails to serve this new 
>> function as a replacemen
> t for the NNBSP, then we are in trouble again as we are now. I think 
> we should still call for a completely new character that we can count 
> on for time to come. The MVS was originally created for the sole 
> purpose of separating the stem from the special final A/E. Let's 
> create another sole-purpose character that will do the job 
> specifically of separating the STEM/Suffix and the Suffix/Suffix.
>>
>> Greg
>>
>>
>>
>> I have created a spreadsheet as attached showing the features of the 
>> MVS as compared to the NNBSP. The differences between the two 
>> characters are highlighted in yellow. As the MVS appears to be doing 
>> pretty good in the areas where the NNBSP is deficient, I suggest that 
>> we study through the MVS features and use the MVS features to model 
>> the new NNBSP_replacement character. I do not understand all of the 
>> features attached to the MVS as listed. Do we have someone who could 
>> analyze the differences and start a features list for the new 
>> NNBSP_replacement character?
>>
>>
>>
>> Thanks,
>> Greg
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Martin J. Dürst [mailto:duerst@it.aoyama.ac.jp]
>> Sent: Wednesday, July 15, 2015 7:15 PM
>> To: Greg Eck <greck@postone.net>; public-i18n-mongolian@w3.org
>> Subject: Re: NNBSP Impact
>>
>>
>>
>> Hello Greg,
>>
>>
>>
>> On 2015/07/15 11:08, Greg Eck wrote:
>>
>>> 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.
>>
>>
>>
>> Yes, that's one of its two main usages. The other is for suffixes.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>> But probably not what we need here in the case of glue-ing the 
>>> suffixes together.
>>
>>
>>
>> I suggest you look at Chapter 9 and Chapter 23.2 of the Unicode 
>> Standard.
>>
>>
>>
>> In particular, I found the following text on page 800 of
>>
>>   <http://www.unicode.org/versions/Unicode7.0.0/ch23.pdf> 
>> http://www.unicode.org/versions/Unicode7.0.0/ch23.pdf:
>>
>>
>>
>>>>>>
>>
>> Zero-Width Spaces and Joiner Characters. The zero-width spaces are 
>> not to be confused with the zero-width joiner characters. U+200C zero 
>> width non-joiner and U+200D zero width joiner have no effect on word 
>> or line break boundaries, and zero width nobreak space and zero width 
>> space have no effect on joining or linking behavior. The zero-width 
>> joiner characters should be ignored when determining word or line 
>> break boundaries. See “Cursive Connection” later in this section.
>>
>>>>>>
>>
>>
>>
>> The "ignore word break" is exactly what you are looking for, as far 
>> as I understand. As for line breaks, I have no idea how the work in 
>> Mongolian, but if there is something like intra-word linebreaks (with 
>> hyphenation or similar or without), then that will be handled by the 
>> language-dependent line breaking logic even if the zero-width 
>> non-joiner doesn't by default provide a line-break opportunity.
>>
>>
>>
>> I'm not at all an expert for Mongolian, and so I may be missing 
>> something. But I think there is a high chance that you will be asked 
>> similar questions if you send a formal proposal to the UTC, and so it 
>> may be worth a more careful check.
>>
>>
>>
>> One thing I was concerned about in my previous mail is that a "zero 
>> width" non-breaking space would not be wide enough (because at least 
>> the name suggests that it's smaller than a "narrow" space). However, 
>> looking at the examples at the SampleOfDagDeg.pdf document, the 
>> 'spaces' between the stem and the suffix seem to be about the same as 
>> the 'spaces' where the letters cannot be connected, and would be a 
>> font matter anyway, so there shouldn't be any serious problems there.
>>
>>
>>
>> Regards,   Martin.
>>
>>
>>
>>> Greg
>>
>>>
>>
>>>
>>
>>> -----Original Message-----
>>
>>> From: Martin J. Dürst [ <mailto:duerst@it.aoyama.ac.jp> 
>>> mailto:duerst@it.aoyama.ac.jp]
>>
>>> Sent: Wednesday, July 15, 2015 9:38 AM
>>
>>> To: Greg Eck; <mailto:public-i18n-mongolian@w3.org> 
>>> 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
>>
>>>>
>>
>>
>
>
>