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

Re: Issues with DA,NA,GA default medial variants

From: Badral S. <badral@bolorsoft.com>
Date: Sun, 25 Oct 2015 21:02:01 +0100
To: public-i18n-mongolian@w3.org
Message-ID: <562D3539.4060508@bolorsoft.com>
Hi Andrew,
I didn't say that there doesn't exist Unicode-encoded Mongolian data or 
websites. Certainly, there exist significant number of data. Bolorsoft 
also creates Mongolian data or web sites with Unicode. I just mentioned 
these are already unstable and not large *in comparison with custom 
encoded mongolian data*.
My question was incorrect due to my poor English. Actually, I should 
write "Why we should not vote correct variants of Da, Na, Ga as 
default?" Because, we never defined current default variants. Every font 
developer has implemented his fonts with own perspectives.
For instance, Mongolianscript (since 2000) and Noto sans fonts 
implemented before vowel variants of Na, Ga, Da as default medial form 
always. However, Mongolian Baiti or Mongolian White fonts have before 
consonant forms as default. If I understand correct, now we want to 
harmonize such diverse variants? If yes, why we should select incorrect 
Is destabilization of already unstable data is more significant or 
future-oriented, correct and effective variant is more significant?
If possible, could we just ask from the committees?

PS: I want to note, why I speak more about correctness or 
future-oriented solution. Because, Mongolian Language law 
(http://www.parliament.mn/laws?key=%D0%BC#2543) has been adopted by 
Mongolian parliament. Now, the usage of Mongolian script increased in 
Mongolia. By 2025 will be all state or governmental organizations are 
conduct their correspondence and public affair in both Mongolian script 
and cyrillic.


On 25.10.2015 19:44, Andrew West wrote:
> Hi Badral,
> There are still a significant number of websites using Unicode-encoded
> Mongolian, and an unknown amount of Unicode Mongolian data that is not
> online, and changing the meaning of any FVS will have a negative
> impact on and a cost to people maintaining Unicode Mongolian data and
> websites.   I do not speak for the UTC or WG2, but I think it is
> highly unlikely that these committees would agree to switch any FVS
> definition without a very compelling reason.
> Andrew
> On 25 October 2015 at 16:47, Badral S. <badral@bolorsoft.com> wrote:
>> 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

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 20:02:32 UTC

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