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

RE: U+1889 Isolate Plus 1828/182D/1833

From: Greg Eck <greck@postone.net>
Date: Sun, 25 Oct 2015 13:54:11 +0000
To: Badral S. <badral@bolorsoft.com>, "public-i18n-mongolian@w3.org" <public-i18n-mongolian@w3.org>
Message-ID: <SN1PR10MB094360A1A74E7630068444BDAF240@SN1PR10MB0943.namprd10.prod.outlook.com>
Hi Badral,

OK, I will mark 1889 as green.

1.)    / 2.) / 3.) I tend to agree with you that what we have now is not necessarily the ideal choice of the default. However, it is what the last 15 years of Mongolian font development has given us. The parameters that seem important in a proposed change/clarification (to me at least) have been:

*         We should try to upset the current font implementations as little as possible

*         Where the implementation does not match the specification, if reasonable, look at changing the specification (eg. U+182C-Medial/Final where the specification said that the two glyphs were to be implemented in the medial position but the font developers all implemented at the final position)

*         If there are sound examples of a new variant and there is seeming agreement between the font developers, add the variant (eg. U+1822-Final+FVS1)

*         Regarding isolates, native script forms should hold a higher value than that of the Unicode-ascribed glyph forms (eg. U+1824/U+1826 where the Unicode-ascribed presentation form does not match the most common isolate form). Where the Unicode-ascribed presentation does not match the desired isolate form, the Unicode glyph should at least be assigned an FVS so that it is displayable as a variant isolate.

*         Surely there are other principles that each of you might want to suggest ... Please comment here

*         My thoughts on the matter are that to change the defaults in the suggested code-points (1828/182D/1833) are massive enough to cause great disruption of font acceptance/usage.

4.) There is no difference in the glyph. Earlier we defined several over-rides - U+1822-Medial, U+182D-Medial, and U+182D-Final (discussion is dated around September 9, 2015). This is the situation where the default context needs to be over-ridden to shape the words where the common context does not match. In other words, given that the shilbe is considered an "I", then "eight" is spelled NAI+FVS2+MA. AN+FVS2+AR spells the archaic ANAR. Feminine "similar/like" is spelled S(H)IG+FVS1 where the expected left-swing orkitz is actually a right-swing suul.

Sent: Sunday, October 25, 2015 11:03 AM
Subject: Re: U+1889 Isolate
Hi Greg and all,
I agree with the 1889. I just reviewed http://r12a.github.io/scripts/mongolian/variants and raised following questions.
1. Why we should not switch U+1828 medial and U+1828 medial + FSV1?
2. Why we should not switch U+1833 medial and U+1833 medial + FSV1?
3. Why we should not switch U+182D medial and U+182D medial + FSV1?
Main writing rule of Mongolian is the alternation of consonants and vowels. All subscribers in this list know it.
Hence, we can easily recognise (without any statistics etc.) which variants are more frequently occur especially in the middle of a word. What do you think? Before vowel variant or before consonant variant?
In Mongolian, consonants are not usable as separate character. That's why we spell all consonants as syllable like DA, NA, GA etc. Here A means a vowel and seems as vowel. Then, why we don't select the form before A(Vowel) but select the exceptional (devsger) variants as default?
I think, it makes no sense and longer typing as well as inefficient linguistic processing.
4. What's difference between U+182D final and U+182D final + FSV1?



(image/png attachment: image001.png)

Received on Sunday, 25 October 2015 13:54:44 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 16:07:44 UTC