RE: Mongolian NNBSP [I18N-ACTION-458]


Good to have your input. Some of my thoughts are similar to those of Richard Wordingham.

This is what I have so far …
{ALetter | Numeric} x [Extend] x NNBSP x ALetter
{} denotes one mandatory item
[] denote an optional item
                I am not sure that we need to break out a new class such as MLetter ??

I am puzzling over the 5th bullet item. I don’t see where we would need be concerned with breaking after punctuation. Could you provide some examples that we need to be concerned with?
On the 6th bullet item, I prefer the solution to be to use the ZWJ/ZWNJ to display a given isolate (suffix or otherwise). Can you give an example of where the ZWJ/ZWNJ would not give the same result as the 6th bullet item result?


From: []
Sent: Saturday, August 1, 2015 1:45 PM
To: Greg Eck <>; 'Andrew West' <>; 'Badral S.' <>
Subject: RE: Mongolian NNBSP [I18N-ACTION-458]

Hi All

I am coming back to Office now and I can spend more time to read the discussion mail as well as study the Unicode Property Definition rule.
It is fine to us, if we can ask to change NNBSP word break property to fit the Mongolian Suffix requirements.

According to my understanding,

1.     The NNBSP word break property should be changed to MidLetter to fit Mongolian Suffix usage.

l  MLetter x NNBSP x MSuffix                   : MLetter -> Mongolian Letter, MSuffix -> Mongolian Suffix

l  ALetter x NNBSP x MSuffix                    : ALetter -> Alphabet Letter

l  Numeric x NNBSP x MSuffix                  : Numeric (digit and Mongolian digit)

l  MLetter(Extend|Format) x  NNBSP x MSuffix : Extend | Format -> FVS1-3, ZWNJ, ZWJ etc)

l  Some_Punctation x NNBSP x MSuffix   : Some_Punctation like )>]” ‘ etc.  (If this is not possible to define separately, we can replace it with following isolate Mongolian Suffix)

l  NNBSP x MSuffix                                   : We need to support the isolate Mongolian Suffix exist

2.     The NNBSP line break property should be remained as GL() , not BA (= "break after").

GL *

Non-breaking (“Glue”)


prohibit line breaks before or after.

Thanks and Best Regards,

Almas Inc.
101-0021 601 Nitto-Bldg, 6-15-11, Soto-Kanda, Chiyoda-ku, Tokyo
E-Mail:<>   Mobile : 090-6174-6115
Phone : 03-5688-2081,   Fax : 03-5688-2082


From: Greg Eck []
Sent: Saturday, August 1, 2015 10:08 AM
To: Andrew West; Badral S.
Subject: RE: Mongolian NNBSP [I18N-ACTION-458]

Hi Andrew,

The case that Badral is referring to is a numeric digit followed by the ordinal suffixes DUGAR/DUEGER and DAQI/DEQI.
Specifically – a Latin digit OR a Mongolian digit followed by NNBSP followed by one of the four ordinal suffix forms DUGAR/DUEGER/DAQI/DEQI would be considered normal and the sequence should not be broken.
Here are two examples ...
<U+0031><U+202F><U+1833><U+1826><U+182D><U+1821><U+1837 >
<U+0032><U+202F><U+1833><U+1824><U+182D><U+1820><U+1837 >
Badral, please confirm.

PS I am attaching a DS05 dealing with all known usages of the NNBSP in Mongolian. The file includes both text strings as well as images. The ordinal section is on page 4.

-----Original Message-----
From: Andrew West []
Sent: Saturday, August 1, 2015 4:12 AM
To: Badral S. <<>>
Subject: Re: Mongolian NNBSP [I18N-ACTION-458]

On 31 July 2015 at 19:50, Badral S. <<>> wrote:
>>> What is the context for "Numeric NNBSP Aletter" ? ExtendNumLet would
>>> inhibit a word break after a numeric, but I think that MidLetter
>>> would not.
> Then MidLetter is correct. A word break after a numeric is incorrect.

I still do not know what the context for this use case is. Is it normal to have "Numeric NNBSP ALetter"? Can you provide an example?


Received on Saturday, 1 August 2015 09:34:25 UTC