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

RE: Searching

From: <jrmt@almas.co.jp>
Date: Tue, 4 Aug 2015 16:17:30 +0900
To: "'Richard Wordingham'" <richard.wordingham@ntlworld.com>
Cc: <public-i18n-mongolian@w3.org>
Message-ID: <004201d0ce85$a09e1030$e1da3090$@almas.co.jp>
Dear Richard,

> It's a bit confusing, because it doesn't show the appearances
corresponding to the various spellings.  
II_002.pdf is created for other purpose, not for this discussion forum.
Let me explain the structure of the file and answer your question.

> I am confused by the encodings for bichiq.  Unicode 8.00 only offers two
forms for finals for U+182D.
I think you are saying that the no dotted two form is currently included in
Unicode 8.0.
The two dotted form is the form which is used before MVS + A | E. 
We call them, final form of the GA.
This is included in the Greg's document and we are discussion now based on
Greg's document FVS-MisMatch.docx.

> I'm also a little confused because QA is U+182C.
HA is regularly used in China, Inner Mongolia. When we say Hohhot(Mongolian
spelling is huhehota), we are not use Qoqqot for Hohhot.
QA is mostly used in the Mongolia, because the H is looks like to Cyrillic
(U+041D), they read it N regularly.
For this reason, we selected the QA as the name of U+182C.

When we talk with our End Users, the Name QA will lead misunderstanding.

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 3:19 PM
To: jrmt@almas.co.jp
Cc: public-i18n-mongolian@w3.org
Subject: Re: Searching

On Tue, 4 Aug 2015 12:34:36 +0900
<jrmt@almas.co.jp> wrote:

Dear Jirimutu,

> I feel the Mongolian encoding is the worst one actually,

I agree.  Combining poorly correlated appearance and sound results in an
overly complicated system.  It reminds me of a combined transliteration and
transcription scheme for Thai, the 'precise' system.  It has almost
completely vanished.

> but we have no time to re-encode it in the reality.

Actually, unusability, lack of support, or lack of use has enabled some
large-scale revisions - MYANMAR and NEW TAI LUE are good examples.

> II_002.pdf is the examples of some words encoding possibilities. Maybe 
> the possibilities will decrease after this discussion forum's 
> conclusion.

It's a bit confusing, because it doesn't show the appearances corresponding
to the various spellings.  I am confused by the encodings for bichiq.
Unicode 8.00 only offers two forms for finals for U+182D.
I'm also a little confused because QA is U+182C.

Richard.
Received on Tuesday, 4 August 2015 07:17:55 UTC

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