FW: Emailing: Isolate Comparision between fonts.docx

Resending



Jirimutu

===============================================================

Almas Inc.

101-0021 601 Nitto-Bldg, 6-15-11, Soto-Kanda, Chiyoda-ku, Tokyo

E-Mail: jrmt@almas.co.jp <mailto: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/

http://www.mongolfont.com/

---------------------------------------------------------------

Inner Mongolia Delehi Information Technology Co. Ltd.

010010 13th floor of Uiles Hotel, No 89 XinHua east street XinCheng
District, Hohhot, Inner Mongolia

Mail:  jirimutu@delehi.com <mailto:jirimutu@delehi.com>
Mobile:18647152148

Phone:  +86-471-6661969,      Ofiice： +86-471-6661995

http://www.delehi.com/

===============================================================



From: jrmt@almas.co.jp [mailto:jrmt@almas.co.jp]
Sent: Monday, September 28, 2015 8:09 PM
To: 'Greg Eck' <greck@postone.net>; 'public-i18n-mongolian@w3.org'
<public-i18n-mongolian@w3.org>
Subject: RE: Emailing: Isolate Comparision between fonts.docx



Hi Greg,



For the Mongolian isolate form, Mr. Badral’s explanation “I am pretty
sure, almost nobody (Mongolian who knows Mongolian script) heard about
isolated forms.

The significance of the isolated form is as minimal. For initial of Names we
use always the initial one.” Is not complete enough.



The Mongolian vowel all have isolate form. The Mongolian consonant all use
the initial form as the isolate form in regularly.

Or sometimes write each consonant with vowel form as the isolate form.
Please check the attached table for one Mongolian-Chinese dictionary.

Sometimes people maybe uses the Initial form for this kind of tables.

But the isolate form of the Mongolian Vowel is actually exists and used for
the listing the Mongolian Alphabet.



*  Yes, if you could send the group some textbook images showing the
teaching of the  , that would be helpful.

Siqin will find some text book reference pages and send out tomorrow.



*  But, can you tell us why the White font uses the initial in U+184F and
U+1859? Why would you say that this this correct - especially in light of
the other fonts’ shaping differences?

As I mentioned above, when we regularly use the Initial Form of the
Mongolian consonant as the isolate form.

For this reason, the U+184F, U+1857 code point form selected the final form
of the character to distinguish it from the U+182E and U+183E.

Actually, U+182E and U+1847 is the same character in different language.
U+183E and U+1857 is also same character in different language.



If we use all Initial Form of the Mongolian consonant as isolate form, we
should select the initial form of these two characters for isolate form.

Use the additional variant form to show the code point form. This is the
user friendly option.



If we decide to use the code point form as the default isolate form, we
should provide all of these character’s real isolate form (Initial form of
consonant as isolate form) in additional variant form.

This is developer friendly option.



Should we select which option ? If there are some rule constraint for the
isolate form should same with the code point form, we can select the second
option.

But is it not user friendly option actually.



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 <mailto: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/

http://www.mongolfont.com/

---------------------------------------------------------------

Inner Mongolia Delehi Information Technology Co. Ltd.

010010 13th floor of Uiles Hotel, No 89 XinHua east street XinCheng
District, Hohhot, Inner Mongolia

Mail:  jirimutu@delehi.com <mailto:jirimutu@delehi.com>
Mobile:18647152148

Phone:  +86-471-6661969,      Ofiice： +86-471-6661995

http://www.delehi.com/

===============================================================



From: Greg Eck [mailto:greck@postone.net]
Sent: Sunday, September 27, 2015 7:09 PM
To: jrmt@almas.co.jp <mailto:jrmt@almas.co.jp> ;
public-i18n-mongolian@w3.org <mailto:public-i18n-mongolian@w3.org>
Subject: RE: Emailing: Isolate Comparision between fonts.docx



Jirimutu,



Yes, if you could send the group some textbook images showing the teaching
of the  , that would be helpful.



If we look at the Todo, we find the FangZhen font has one difference. I am
asking the Fangzhen engineer to comment on this now also.



But, can you tell us why the White font uses the initial in U+184F and
U+1859? Why would you say that this this correct - especially in light of
the other fonts’ shaping differences?



Greg



>>>>>

*        What do we print on a keyboard for these four letters? I would
think it would be .

Yes, for identification.

*        What shaping do you get for the sequence
<U+1823><SPACE><U+1824><SPACE><U+1825><SPACE><U+1826>? If we give the
shaping as be how do we answer the pupil when he/she asks why there is a
difference?

It is the true, we are all teaching pupil in this way until now.

*        When we are teaching the alphabet in the classroom, do we teach
or  ?

It is the first group. We can provide some text book copy next week.

*        It would seem very strange to be giving instruction where you are
teaching two different letters with exactly the same form.

Yes, it is. But it is the Traditional Mongolian writing.



Actually, the Todo, Manchu is created for removing these kind of ambiguous
writing forms (two or four character have same writing mode).



But when we define the Unicde code point, we selected some characters like ,
,     for Sibe and Manchu.

All of these form is not the isolate form actually.

>>>>>