RE: Searching

Dear Mr. Richard,

> Does the Mongolian alphabet as claimed by the Unicode codepoints work away from computers?  
> What I get from that list is the idea that something much closer to the Semitic original, 
> largely based on shape, should have been encoded. For example, 
> what is encoded as OE- should actually have been encoded as E-O-I- (aleph, waw, yodh as 'The World's Writing Systems' by Daniels and Bright puts it).
I cannot say the Mongolian alphabet as claimed by the Unicode codepoints work away from computers. 
But it is not work exactly as we expected, like other languages. 
For example like English, Chinese, Japanese which I can read write.
I am a IT guy, write a lot kinds of system and programs in my 30 years professional work.
I feel the Mongolian encoding is the worst one actually, but we have no time to re-encode it in the reality.
We have struggled on it for 20 years' time. And eventually come to today's level.
I am expecting, after this time's discussion, we can solve the most of the glyph rendering mismatched rules and 
Utilize this standards more widely, more regularly. You know on the Internet, 
most of the Mongolian Home page is still using individual industry private encoding (using the Unicode Private Usage Area) 
to publishing and displaying the Mongolian context. And there are several different encoding versions. 
I don't want to discuss this point more, and I think we cannot solve this problem easily. We can work around the existing problem like the list.
I do not want to wait another one or two decade to entirely resolve all of the problem.
It is ok for me that if you can understand this situation and the real figure of the Mongolian Unicode.
Let me attach another PDF files what I prepared for another purpose before.
This II_001.PDF can clearly show you how many same shapes exist in Mongolian Variant Form and which is come from which code point.
II_002.pdf is the examples of some words encoding possibilities. Maybe the possibilities will decrease after this discussion forum's conclusion.

Thanks and Best Regards,

Jirimutu
==========================================================
Almas Inc.
101-0021 601 Nitto-Bldg, 6-15-11, Soto-Kanda, Chiyoda-ku, Tokyo
E-Mail: jrmt@almas.co.jp   Mobile : 090-6174-6115
Phone : 03-5688-2081,   Fax : 03-5688-2082
http://www.almas.co.jp/   http://www.compiere-japan.com/
==========================================================



-----Original Message-----
From: Richard Wordingham [mailto:richard.wordingham@ntlworld.com] 
Sent: Tuesday, August 4, 2015 7:32 AM
To: public-i18n-mongolian@w3.org
Cc: public-i18n-mongolian@w3.org
Subject: Re: Searching

On Tue, 4 Aug 2015 05:04:13 +0900
<jrmt@almas.co.jp> wrote:

> The following is our folding list.
> 
> 1. A v. E,
> 2. O v U
> 3. UE v. UE (first syllable)
> 4. O v. U v. OE v. UE (medial and final from)
> 5. I v. Y     - ( medial form is the UCS rule's new addition )
> 6. J v. Y (Initial)
> 7. O U OE UE v. W (medial, final) - the UCS's new addition 8. HE v. 
> GE, HI v. GI, HOE v. GOE, HUE v. GUE 9. TA v. DA
> 10 EE v. WA  - (the UCS's new addition)
> 11 KA v. KHA - (the UCS's new addition) 12. HAA v. ZHI (medial and 
> final)

Does the Mongolian alphabet as claimed by the Unicode codepoints work away from computers?  What I get from that list is the idea that something much closer to the Semitic original, largely based on shape, should have been encoded. For example, what is encoded as OE- should actually have been encoded as E-O-I- (aleph, waw, yodh as 'The World's Writing Systems' by Daniels and Bright puts it).

Richard.