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

RE: New Thread - FVS Assignment MisMatch

From: <jrmt@almas.co.jp>
Date: Tue, 4 Aug 2015 22:35:10 +0900
To: "'Richard Wordingham'" <richard.wordingham@ntlworld.com>, <public-i18n-mongolian@w3.org>
Cc: <public-i18n-mongolian@w3.org>
Message-ID: <00f501d0ceba$62d43e20$287cba60$@almas.co.jp>
Dear Mr. Richard,

I have missed the further communication on following point what you have mentioned.

> If you mean you will make a choice consistent with standardized 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.
Do you mean, we don᠌'t need to follow the Mongolian Character display form which is selected in the Unicode chart U1800.pdf 
as the default isolate form of the character ?

I think the default isolate form have to be same with the Unicode chart for distinguishing the character using the isolation process to show their original display form.

Because of this I am puzzled for how to handle the U1824 and U1826 isolate form.
The New Proposal on the  http://r12a.github.io/scripts/mongolian/variants showed us to select the Initial form of the character in real word to be the isolate form.
But all of the implementation is not selected the form which is shown on the Unicode chart.

Yes it is true we provided the initial form to UTC for easily pass the UTC rule for encoding code point character have to be in different form. 

But when we teach the pupils, we will face the why the isolate form of the character displaying on computer which is not the isolate form.
Maybe it is not a big problem itself, when I prepare the other character variant selection, I find it and need to confirm it with you because you have mentioned it in last mail.

Thanks and Best Regards,


吉日 木図
==========================================================
株式会社アルマス
〒101-0021 東京都千代田区外神田6-15-11 日東ビル601号
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: Monday, August 3, 2015 7:00 AM
To: public-i18n-mongolian@w3.org
Cc: public-i18n-mongolian@w3.org
Subject: Re: New Thread - FVS Assignment MisMatch

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. 

Richard.
Received on Tuesday, 4 August 2015 13:35:36 UTC

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