RE: NNBSP Impact Wrapup

Hi Greg,

 

I have left only one concern for ᠤᠤ (U1824:U1824, U1826:U1826 as you listed in DS05).  

But if we decide not to use NNBSP to format the initial U1824 and U1826, it is not the NNBSP issue, it is become the U1824 and U1826 issue. 

 

I am ok to go ahead for following 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, August 3, 2015 12:08 AM
To: public-i18n-mongolian@w3.org
Subject: NNBSP Impact Wrapup

 

Thanks to everyone for the good discussion on the NNBSP issues in Mongolian. 

Special thanks to the UTC for elevating the discussion to one of such priority also.

 

It appears that we are saying that we should accept the solution of continuing our use of the NNBSP as the Mongolian Suffix Joiner with the following amendments

·       WordBreak property is changed from “Other” to “ExtendNumLet”. The basic mechanism is to propose to the UTC a change in the WordBreakProperties.txt file. If the proposal is accepted, then the normative file is distributed and the changes should be felt downline as the data is propagated. Does this sound correct? The basic change that we are looking for is that this will allow a Mongolian word composed of stem plus several suffixes with the NNBSP embedded will not break. This will effectively allow utilities such as word-counting, word-selection, and such to work as desired.

 

The cases this change has to handle, as Jirimutu has clearly delineated, are 

·       <MongolianLetter(subset of ALetter)><NNBSP>< MongolianLetter >

·       <MongolianLetter><FVS1|FVS2|FVS3><NNBSP>< MongolianLetter >

·       <Numeric(Latin, Mongolian, Tibetan, etc)><NNBSP>< MongolianLetter >

·       NOTE: that the solution will not handle <PunctuationAsSpecificToMongolianScript><NNBSP>< MongolianLetter > and that we are saying that the overall solution is more important than this one limitation

 

Do we need any more discussion here? As major parties in the discussion have been Badral and Jirimutu, could both of you confirm moving ahead? Other comments?

 

Thanks,

Greg