- From: Badral S. <badral@bolorsoft.com>
- Date: Sun, 25 Oct 2015 17:47:50 +0100
- To: public-i18n-mongolian@w3.org
Hi Andrew & Greg, I think the impact is slight because: 1. Most existing Mongolian data has still own encoding (non-unicode). In Mongolia, mostly used the fonts CM Urga, Ulaanbaatar etc. For instance: http://www.president.mn/mng, http://khumuunbichig.montsame.mn ... In inner Mongolia used mostly Menkhsoft's solution. Please comment Menksoft's representatives. 2. Most mongolian unicode data created using Mongolian script font, which has 15 years long correct default variants. In inner Mongolia used probably Mongolian Baiti. Mongolian Baiti was/is itself very unstable. For instance, as I know, it has in 2011 "Bichig" as "Bichig+fvs1" encoded. or? It means the existing mongolian unicode data is itself really not stable. If we change it to correct variant, we would implement normalisation tool for unicode mongolian data and distribute it freely. 3. I tend to think, the current default forms are not standardized globally. If not, can you redirect me and give me some references? Badral On 25.10.2015 13:48, Andrew West wrote: > On 25 October 2015 at 03:11, Badral S. <badral@bolorsoft.com> wrote: >> 1. Why we should not switch current U+1828 medial and U+1828 medial + FSV1? >> 2. Why we should not switch current U+1833 medial and U+1833 medial + FSV1? >> 3. Why we should not switch current U+182D medial and U+182D medial + FSV1? > Because it would destabilize existing Mongolian data. In my opinion, > we should not switch existing FVS's, even when the alternative would > have made more sense for the reasons you mention. > > Andrew > -- Badral Sanlig, Software architect www.bolorsoft.com | www.badral.net Bolorsoft LLC, Selbe Khotkhon 40/4 D2, District 11, Ulaanbaatar
Received on Sunday, 25 October 2015 16:48:24 UTC