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

RE: FVS for NA

From: <jrmt@almas.co.jp>
Date: Fri, 7 Aug 2015 07:25:59 +0900
To: "'Martin Heijdra'" <mheijdra@Princeton.EDU>, "'siqin'" <siqin@almas.co.jp>, "'Richard Wordingham'" <richard.wordingham@ntlworld.com>, <public-i18n-mongolian@w3.org>
Message-ID: <003601d0d096$df3971a0$9dac54e0$@almas.co.jp>
Hi Martin,

> The list as published in Quejingzhabu's book also made careful
distinctions (even if unfortunately not 100% correct), 
> through the use of white on black or black on white marks, and brackets
(), 
> whether a FVS was always , never, or only sometimes necessary in running
text.  
> I would think that is a useful distinction to convey to implementers. 
> I have the feeling (but not following the discussion that closely, may be
wrong), 
> that that is what Jirimutu is getting at, while Richard is looking at the
insufficient Unicode variant list.
I am refereeing Quejingzhabu's book, But there is a lot of problem, it is
published in 2000.
It can give us the direction, but not the solution. I am not saying the
incorrect parts of the book.
I am saying its completeness. because he ignored so many detailed things in
his book.
In later, I found Greg's document, MD020 on internet. I think it is the
revision of the book. 
Additionally, we have GB-26226-2010, the Chinese government standard
published in 2010.
This standards is the revision of the book, maybe it is the 7th edition of
his document.

After his 7th edition, we are not able to get the new version of his
document on public.
I have heard there are 9th Edition in his hand ( it should be the version
what Greg and Aaron worked on it for Mongolian Baiti 5.0.11). 
I was asked by Professor Quejingzhabu to make a contract of transfer of
technology, and have to implement font exactly same with him on some of the
linguistic argument point.
He says most of the companies and social parties have already make contract
with him to use his documentation, like Microsoft, FangZheng, MenkSoft,
HuaGuang etc.
I can accept to make a contract for technology transferring. I respect him
on his great works done on the Mongolian Unicode Encoding.

But I cannot accept some point of view in his document like I have raised
the discussion on this forum, for example, the Medial YA impact.
We need to communicate or discuss more on it to get onto one goal that is
acceptable to all of the Mongolian as well as the world.

I think Professor Quejingzhabu or his colleagues are reading this
discussion.
I would like to advise him provide his document more open to the global wide
is helpful to the Mongolian Unicode Encoding more quickly, more widely
utilized.
He will be more respectful on his whole contribution works done.

Thanks and 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: Martin Heijdra [mailto:mheijdra@Princeton.EDU] 
Sent: Thursday, August 6, 2015 10:15 PM
To: siqin; Richard Wordingham; public-i18n-mongolian@w3.org
Subject: RE: FVS for NA

I was quite familiar with the very original Mongolian implementation, and
helped develop based upon documentation provided by Quejingzhabu a full
correctly working version for Mongolian, Manchu, Todo and Sibe during Vista
development. The shipping Vista version already had problems (Uniscribe had
changed), and later versions broke much. But I also realized that at that
time some decisions were made, which actually should be agreed upon by a
much wider community. And actually, Mongolian is the easy part (the goal is
clearer!),while  in Manchu especially I found many spellings which needed to
be implemented but were not documented in the available documents, but in
articles here and there.

Since apparently everything is starting over from scratch, but discussed by
the users community, which is the most important thing, I don't feel the
need to report on individual issues (as long as agreement is reached, that
is a step forward, and I certainly trust the work of some on this list), but
I start having the feeling that some are not realizing that there is a major
difference between a list with FVSs made to be able to use metatalk, using
ZWJs, about those forms as forms (the old, but also the "new" Unicode 8
list) , and the use of FVSs in running texts. Thus, while the old Unicode
list was particularly unhelpful, the new one referred to here every now and
then is also not very clear for people who would not know Mongolian well.

Thus, the following message refers to the N. The FVS1 there always was
defined as a *toggle*, always meaning "the first exception to the rule":
thus, in running text, NA+FVS1 did NOT refer to a particular glyph, and any
such assumption so is wrong (unless you completely change the rules). The NA
has different default versions, with or without dot, before consonants and
vowels; the FVS1 chooses the opposite. Thus, in running text, unlike
metatext, there is no ONE definition of NA+FVS1: it depends on context. At
least, that was the model chosen. Thus it is not even true to say, what is
the case in most cases, that the FVS defines a glyph, but that whether the
FVS is needed in running text depends on the context, and I think that is
the assumption of many: the very shape of NA+FVS1 depends on the context.

When revising the variant list, I think it would be useful to point out
those things, and not treat NA+FVS1 as if it were similar to the definition
of an A+FVS1 etc.

The list as published in Quejingzhabu's book also made careful distinctions
(even if unfortunately not 100% correct), through the use of white on black
or black on white marks, and brackets (), whether a FVS was always , never,
or only sometimes necessary in running text.  I would think that is a useful
distinction to convey to implementers. I have the feeling (but not following
the discussion that closely, may be wrong), that that is what Jirimutu is
getting at, while Richard is looking at the insufficient Unicode variant
list.

Andrew and Greg: I am sure you know what I am getting at. Perhaps there is
no such misunderstanding between the discussants; but even then, the final
document should ensure that nobody ever will have that misunderstanding, and
in that sense, the Unicode 8 variant list is only a partial solution.

Martin


-----Original Message-----
From: siqin [mailto:siqin@almas.co.jp]
Sent: Thursday, August 06, 2015 4:21 AM
To: Richard Wordingham; public-i18n-mongolian@w3.org
Subject: Re: FVS for NA

On 2015/08/06 9:16, Richard Wordingham wrote:
> 1) Initial NA has a dot unless it is followed by a consonant.  (The 
> example I saw was the surprising spelling of the Canotonese name Ng, 
> with NA and, I think, GA.)
     No, Initial NA always has a dot. If no dot, it read as E(1821), not
N(1828).
> 2) Medial NA has a dot before a Mongolian vowel, and not otherwise.
     Not entirely correct.
     There is exception that NA has not dot before a Mongolian vowel as
below.
         Medial A(1820) + FVS1
         Medial I(1822) + FVS1
         Medial o(1823) + FVS1
         Medial u(1824) + FVS1
         Medial OE(1825) + FVS2
         Medial UE(1826) + FVS2
     This forms  are not used in normal word, but used in word which
consists of two( or more) words.
     Look at na_exception.pdf and na_exception.png.
> 3) Before MVS, NA has a final form, but with a dot.
     Correct.
> 4) The final form has no dot.
     Correct.

SiqinBilige.
Received on Thursday, 6 August 2015 22:26:21 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 16:07:05 UTC