RE: Reference Scheme for Mongolian Rendering

Hi Richard,

Good notes. Is this usually done for a given script/language?

Comments here:
1.) I agree in philosophy. The things I assume may actually be the things another person is just learning. So, better to lay out everything. I think it would be good for us to have a discussion on keyboards at the end of our talk. There should be some standardization on keyboard mappings. If standardization is not possible, then at least a listing of the various mappings used on simple keyboards. A discussion on smart keyboards could follow from there.
2.) I am not sure I would say "normally". Baiti and probably most of the other fonts use direct OT substitutions. I have experimented with the Type 14 Encoding Table successfully, but don't know that it is needed in every case. Where we are using the standard FVS1-3, I would say we continue to use the standard method with OT substitution rulings. If we leave the realm of the FVS set, then we should probably consider using the Type 14 CMAP table. Could we have some discussion here? Is anyone using the Type 14 CMAP table yet? The area where we experimented with the Type 14 table was in the rotation of digits. We used the VS01 as our selector.
3.) Yes
4.) I know of 4 genuine over-ride situations where we need an FVS to actually over-ride the default - U+1822, U+1828, U+182D (2x). I can provide some simple rules and see if we can map them into the nomenclature you suggest.
5.) Yes

Can we add your paper to the NOTES section of Richard Ishida's attachments at ?


-----Original Message-----
From: Richard Wordingham []
Sent: Friday, August 14, 2015 8:56 AM
Subject: Reference Scheme for Mongolian Rendering

Looking at Greg's list of data sets (DS...) in his post of Saturday 8th August ('Mongolian Variation Sequences Missing from Unicode 8.00 Code Chart',
), we are missing two important items:

1) A reference scheme for rendering.  I offer one in the attachment rendering_framework.odt.

2) The rules for contextual forms that may be overridden by variation selectors.  Without these rules, we do not know whether we have an adequate set of variation selectors for rendering connected text.

I am trying to identify the contextual rules, though I am not the best person for the job.  NNBSP has me worried.  Do we need to identify suffix rules for every language that might conceivably be written in the Mongolian script with separated suffixes?


Received on Friday, 14 August 2015 10:10:54 UTC