- From: Richard Wordingham <richard.wordingham@ntlworld.com>
- Date: Sun, 2 Aug 2015 19:14:26 +0100
- To: <public-i18n-mongolian@w3.org>
On Mon, 3 Aug 2015 00:56:29 +0900 <jrmt@almas.co.jp> wrote: > For example, following is my personal consideration. > > 1. We select the most commonly used isolate, initial, medial, final > form of the character as the default Variant form (No need FVS1-3). > > The variant form listed on the primary school first year pupil's > text book comes first (is the default form). > The default isolate form have to be same with the Unicode encoding > chart. No! The Unicode editing committee tried to chose a form that was unique to a particular character. That does not make it the appropriate default isolate. Remember, the basic character charts are not normative; they merely serve to tell the reader which character has a particular code. This can fail spectacularly when characters are distinguished by their sound rather than their shapes. (There are also a few Korean Chinese compatibility characters that are principally distinguished by sound.) A similar example is the pairs U+0061 LATIN SMALL LETTER A and U+0251 LATIN SMALL LETTER ALPHA and U+0067 LATIN SMALL LETTER G and U+0261 LATIN SMALL LETTER SCRIPT G. A Unicode-compliant font for a children's book may render U+0061 and U+0067 like the reference glyphs for U+0251 and U+0261; it may even render each pair identically. I trust the following (points 2 to 5) are guiding principles for dealing with overlooked or definitely unclear combinations. Unicode might not take kindly to changing the existing assignments. > 2. To exactly specify the second regularly used variant form, we will > use FVS1. <snip> > Because of the previous existing Mongolian Variant formatting rule > have not clearly, uniquely defined the form selection. How much of the problem is due to unclear determination of whether the starting point is the isolated, initial, medial or final form? There may conceivably be an error in the 'joining type' of MVS and NNBSP. As far as the variation selectors are concerned, the Unicode standard rules that the preceding letter is final or isolated, and the following letter is initial or isolated. Apart from any issues there, the definitions should be clear. I looked and saw no difference for the Mongolian script between StandardizedVariants.html in Versions 4.00 and 8.00 of Unicode. Richard.
Received on Sunday, 2 August 2015 18:14:56 UTC