W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-i18n-mongolian@w3.org > July to September 2015

Re: New Thread - FVS Assignment MisMatch

From: Richard Wordingham <richard.wordingham@ntlworld.com>
Date: Sun, 2 Aug 2015 22:59:45 +0100
Cc: <public-i18n-mongolian@w3.org>
Message-ID: <20150802225945.78de9cf6@JRWUBU2>
On Mon, 3 Aug 2015 05:52:01 +0900
<jrmt@almas.co.jp> wrote:

> What is the problem ? what I am saying here is we will follow the
> Unicode Encoding chart U1800.pdf to select the default isolate
> variant form.

If you mean you will make a choice consistent with standardised
variants, that is fine.  If you mean the isolated form will
necessarily be the one that is shown in the code chart, that is wrong.

> But do you know, how many undistinguishable word exactly in
> Mongolian ? According to our approximately statistic, 
> there are almost 80% of the word have more than two spelling in
> current Mongolian Unicode encoding.

Is that true?  There may be more than two spellings that look the same,
but do they *sound* the same?  As I understand it, the Mongolian
encoding represents sounds as well as appearance.  Are Mongolian
dictionaries sorted according to sound or according to visual form?

> We have no other selection, we have to use current version of the
> Unicode Mongolian.

> It is Ok to me that the principle of the Mongolian Variant form
> mapping might be quietly different with my list.
> But I am hoping that there should be one this kind of principle. 

It is a shame that the explanation is missing.  I'm still trying to
understand the shaping rules, but I think the variation selectors are
most organised as you suggest.

> Do you agree that because of the Unicode Mongolian Encoding rule
> definition, the users have to change their learned grammar to fit the
> Unicode rule ? Or Unicode rule need to fit with the majority people's
> existing grammar knowledge ? 

The adjustments should only be minor.  There may be ways to
make what looks like a big difference into a small difference.
Otherwise, the Mongolian encoding seems to have failed. 

Received on Sunday, 2 August 2015 22:00:16 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 16:07:04 UTC