RE: Mongolian Variation Sequences Missing from Unicode 8.00 Code Chart

>>> The standardizedvariants document is being deprecated by the UTC in 
>> favor of the code charts that now contain the same information with 
> improved glyphs.

>My first problem is that it doesn't.  And it would be grossly misleading to claim that StandardizedVariants.txt defined the variants for Mongolian.  It states what variants exist, but not what the variations are.

See my other message about the production issue. Please refer to the 7.0 code charts for Mongolian for what should have been there.

>In principal, the omissions ought to be reported as ballot comment for Issue 5 of ISO 10646.  I don't know whether the Mongolian chart will be regenerated with the rendering corrections as a matter of course for Issue 5.

I would rather prefer that we improve the variants situation for Mongolian. There are many that thinks that the current description is flawed. We have plenty of time to fix it in the 5th edition, and it would be nice to have it in Unicode 9.0. I do all the draft work for code charts for both Unicode and ISO.

>> Please use the Mongolian 8.0 code charts as current reference. I had 
>> been working on the past with Greg to improve the status of the 
>> descriptions of these variants.

>I trust I have missed something, because it looks like an attempt to sneak changes through.  I don't believe it is a good idea to change the meaning of variation selectors.  If we can't use general purpose variation selectors such as U+FE00 VARIATION SELECTOR-1, there is still room at U+180F.

No intent to sneak anything through. It was an honest production mistake. Any change in the variants definition have to be approved by UTC and relevant ISO communities. I am just trying to make easy to see the whole picture. In all cases the code chart is a just piece of the puzzle. The other part should be a serious rewrite of the Mongolian section in the core Unicode spec.

>> Another improvement of
>> these code charts is to soon show all contextual forms (isolated, 
>> initial, medial, and final) to facilitate the reading of the variants 
>> which are themselves contextual.

>That is a welcome enhancement.

It is already working, just have to read again DS01 and generate the correct data to reflect it.

Michel

Received on Thursday, 6 August 2015 03:19:16 UTC