RE: NNBSP Impact

I would suggest that my comments on the U+1880-U+1884 were a bit pre-mature.
With Andrew's comments and the discussion we have had, it is clear that these 5 Sansrkit derived characters are much more than punctuation.
It would seem that they act more like letters than marks.
I suggest we leave them alone for now and pull back in to our main discussion on the NNBSP situation.

I did make up two images however showing how Word handles the 5 glyphs vertically and horizontally.
There is no problem with Baiti rotating them from horizontal to vertical in MS Word. See two images as attached.

Richard,
Interesting that you would bring up the case of the "missing 1820 180C  third form (medial)". 
I have prepared the discussion points dealing with this glyph and will get it out shortly.

I think we are ready to wrap up the discussion on the NNBSP and will start that in the following email.

Greg


-----Original Message-----
From: Richard Wordingham [mailto:richard.wordingham@ntlworld.com] 
Sent: Sunday, August 2, 2015 7:00 PM
To: public-i18n-mongolian@w3.org
Cc: public-i18n-mongolian@w3.org
Subject: Re: NNBSP Impact

On Sun, 2 Aug 2015 17:58:25 +0900
<jrmt@almas.co.jp> wrote:

> But what I mean
> here "on top of corresponding character" in horizontal writing, still 
> remain "in the top" in the vertical writing mode.
> Because the Chinese
> and Tibetan character will not rotate in vertical writing system 
> actually.

But I would argue that these are not Tibetan characters; they are Mongolian characters used to transliterate Tibetan characters.

> And I found the U1883 and U1884 is
> also rotated to fit to write in the left side of the Mongolian 
> character. This is mean that these character will be written on the 
> left side of the corresponding character in horizontal writing mode.

The Unicode Standard contains mistakes, and the code chart for Mongolian clearly does.  I hope to report tonight a set of unarguable mistakes such as the omission of the glyph for "1820 180C  third form (medial)"; the glyph is missing for many such variants.

I would say it is probably best to accept what the code chart has done for U+1883 and U+1884, unless you know of fonts or natural writing that behave differently.

Richard.