RE: FVS for NA

Thanks for the comment on MD020.
Glad that it was of some use.
Greg


-----Original Message-----
From: jrmt@almas.co.jp [mailto:jrmt@almas.co.jp] 
Sent: Friday, August 7, 2015 10:13 PM
To: Greg Eck <greck@postone.net>; 'Martin Heijdra' <mheijdra@Princeton.EDU>; 'siqin' <siqin@almas.co.jp>; 'Richard Wordingham' <richard.wordingham@ntlworld.com>; public-i18n-mongolian@w3.org
Subject: RE: FVS for NA

Hi Greg,

> My document MD020 was an amateur's attempt to understand and justify 
> the
use of all glyphs found in print at that time. 
> It was a good start, but has many items that were just plain wrong and
need to be revised as it was published in 2004. 
It was very helpful document in that time around 2004. 
I was wandering why Unicode publish the mapping rule together with the mapping rule.
Without the mapping rule, the on one Unicode chart is useless. Even no direction to one mapping rule, or the mapping rule principle.
Maybe there is some documentation in UTC site, but without any direction.

> But it certainly not an attempt to revise Professor Quejingzhabu's work.
Sorry, this is my misunderstanding. 

> Professor Quejingzhabu's work in what we call Specification 9.0 is 
> very
good. 
> It is out of date already. This material would be helpful to any 
> Mongolian
font developer even if outdated. 
Ok. I got understand it. Even I have heard some different sound in the Inner Mongolia.

> We need to understand that he is under contract with some of these
materials and 
> that they are considered to have intellectual property rights. 
> So, he needs to be a bit careful about what he releases. 
I can understand him and his team's effort and contribution. 

> That being said, I would love to see his work available to the greater
public.
Yes I do.

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: Greg Eck [mailto:greck@postone.net]
Sent: Friday, August 7, 2015 10:32 PM
To: jrmt@almas.co.jp; 'Martin Heijdra'; 'siqin'; 'Richard Wordingham'; public-i18n-mongolian@w3.org
Subject: RE: FVS for NA

Jirimutu,

My document MD020 was an amateur's attempt to understand and justify the use of all glyphs found in print at that time. It was a good start, but has many items that were just plain wrong and need to be revised as it was published in 2004. But it certainly not an attempt to revise Professor Quejingzhabu's work.

Professor Quejingzhabu's work in what we call Specification 9.0 is very good. It is out of date already. This material would be helpful to any Mongolian font developer even if outdated. We need to understand that he is under contract with some of these materials and that they are considered to have intellectual property rights. So, he needs to be a bit careful about what he releases. That being said, I would love to see his work available to the greater public.

Greg




-----Original Message-----
From: jrmt@almas.co.jp [mailto:jrmt@almas.co.jp]
Sent: Friday, August 7, 2015 6:26 AM
To: 'Martin Heijdra' <mheijdra@Princeton.EDU>; 'siqin' <siqin@almas.co.jp>; 'Richard Wordingham' <richard.wordingham@ntlworld.com>;
public-i18n-mongolian@w3.org
Subject: RE: FVS for NA

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 Saturday, 8 August 2015 03:37:30 UTC