- From: Badral S. <badral@bolorsoft.com>
- Date: Sun, 25 Oct 2015 18:08:10 +0100
- To: public-i18n-mongolian@w3.org
- Message-ID: <562D0C7A.8060203@bolorsoft.com>
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? Badral 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 > http://r12a.github.io/scripts/mongolian/variants > <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? > > Badral > > >>>>>>> > > > imap://badral%2Ebolorsoft@mail.bolorsoft.com:143/fetch%3EUID%3E.INBOX%3E4948?header=quotebody&part=1.2&filename=image001.png > -- 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 17:08:41 UTC