Re: FVS Assignment Mismatch WrapUp

Hi Greg,

> ·182D Medial – given the case where the contextual rules for the dual 
> dots must be over-ridden. In other words, the context dictates that 
> the medial GA is dotted, however, the actual shaping of the word is 
> desired without the dots. I have not had the time to track down 
> examples for this. 
     I did not face with this case in my font implementation experiment.
     It may be :
     There is a grammar rule which the two dots will be omitted if 
g(182D) follows s(1830) and d(1833) in Traditional Mongolian.
     ( The most dictionaries spell it as QA and read it as GA. )
         medi_ga_exception1.png
         medi_ga_exception2.png
     But there is a exception
         medi_ga_exception3.png
     So, if over-ridden is needed, the doted GA, not the undoted one. I 
think.
> ·182D Final – given the case where the feminine final GA does not 
> follow the common pattern of sweeping to the left, but however sweeps 
> to the right. In other words, the word is composed of feminine vowels, 
> but carries a masculine right-ward swept tail. From discussions with 
> Professor Quejngzhabu, I understand that there are just a small subset 
> of words (5-6 in quantity) that follow this pattern.
     See
         final_ga_exception1.png
         final_ga_exception2.png
         final_ga_exception3.png (?)

SiqinBilige

On 2015/08/24 0:19, Greg Eck wrote:
>
> I am ready to wrap up the discussion on FVS Assignment Mismatch.
>
> However I am still lacking good examples on two of the over-rides 
> discussed ...
>
> ·182D Medial – given the case where the contextual rules for the dual 
> dots must be over-ridden. In other words, the context dictates that 
> the medial GA is dotted, however, the actual shaping of the word is 
> desired without the dots. I have not had the time to track down 
> examples for this.
>
> ·182D Final – given the case where the feminine final GA does not 
> follow the common pattern of sweeping to the left, but however sweeps 
> to the right. In other words, the word is composed of feminine vowels, 
> but carries a masculine right-ward swept tail. From discussions with 
> Professor Quejngzhabu, I understand that there are just a small subset 
> of words (5-6 in quantity) that follow this pattern.
>
> ·I am attaching two files showing data sets for the non-over-ride 
> cases here.
>
> *Erdenechimeg, Siqin, I wonder if you or others can help find some 
> good examples that we can state in this regard? Your examples before 
> were so helpful. We have some good examples for the 1822 medial 
> single-tooth over-ride with NAIMA (“eight”). Also, we have a good set 
> with the 1828 undotted medial over-ride. But we are still lacking for 
> the two cases of the 182D GA as listed above. Anything we can document 
> here will be helpful.*
>
> Thanks,
> Greg
>
> PS Our next topic will be Isolates – an exhaustive overview
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Greg Eck [mailto:greck@postone.net]
> Sent: Friday, August 14, 2015 6:14 PM
> To: Richard Wordingham <richard.wordingham@ntlworld.com>; 
> public-i18n-mongolian@w3.org
> Subject: RE: Reference Scheme for Mongolian Rendering
>
> Hi Richard,
>
> Attached please find the rules for the four over-rides.
>
> I did this a bit fast, everyone please look over carefully to see if I 
> made a mistake.
>
> Thanks,
>
> Greg
>
> -----Original Message-----
>
> From: Richard Wordingham [mailto:richard.wordingham@ntlworld.com]
>
> Sent: Friday, August 14, 2015 8:56 AM
>
> To: public-i18n-mongolian@w3.org <mailto:public-i18n-mongolian@w3.org>
>
> 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', 
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-i18n-mongolian/2015JulSep/0248.html
>
> ), 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?
>
> Richard.
>