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

Hi Greg,
For 1,2,3, I am still very sceptical. Because it might destabilize 
current *unstable* data.
4. Ok, understand. I thought that always FVS2's used for overriding. Is 
182D final+fvs2 not redundant, if we use 182D final + FVS1 as overrider?


On 25.10.2015 14:54, Greg Eck wrote:
> 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.
> Greg
> >>>>>>
> *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
>     <> 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?
>     Badral
>     >>>>>>>
>     imap://

Badral Sanlig, Software architect |
Bolorsoft LLC, Selbe Khotkhon 40/4 D2, District 11, Ulaanbaatar

Received on Sunday, 25 October 2015 17:08:41 UTC