U+182C/U+182D ligature

Hi Greg,

 

*  Thanks for the comment on U+1887.

I think you are saying U+1867 here.

 

*  OK, could you take a critical look at all of the NP entries from 1820-18AA and see if there are any entries that you want to question?

I have one more request to make ligature encoding of the U+182C and U+182D more logical and integrity.

 

Now we are encoding the ligature of U+182D as bellow (Just one example). We can find the whole encoding list in your DS02 document.

Ligature example of U+182D_G + U+1822_I 

 

1.      Initial U+182D_G + Medial U+1822_I     ᠭᠢ᠊

2.      Initial U+182D_G + Final  U+1822_I      ᠭᠢ

3.      Medial U+182D_G + Medial U+1822_I    ᠊ᠭᠢ᠊

4.      Medial U+182D_G + Final  U+1822_I     ᠊ᠭᠢ

 

5.      Initial U+182D_G + FVS1 + Medial U+1822_I      ᠭ᠋ᠢ᠊

6.      Initial U+182D_G  + FVS1 + Final  U+1822_I       ᠭ᠋ᠢ

7.      Medial U+182D_G  + FVS1 + Medial U+1822_I     ᠊ᠭ᠋ᠢ᠊

8.      Medial U+182D_G  + FVS1 + Final  U+1822_I      ᠊ᠭ᠋ᠢ

 

But as I know in some case, we saw the writing  ᠊ᠭ᠊ ᠊ᠢ᠊᠂ ᠊᠍ᠭ᠋᠊ ᠊ᠢ᠊  connected medial form in the irregular case. 

Or we are want to write wrong spelling word with these kind of word.

In this case 

The initial, medial form’s FVS we selected in our NP, cannot exactly match the request of one to one mapping.

 

(1)   U+182D initial default form is ᠭ᠌,        medial default form + U+1822 is     ᠭᠢ᠊. (This is acceptable for me).

(2)   U+182D initial FVS1 form is ᠭ᠋᠊,          medial FVS1 form + U+1822 is      ᠭ᠋ᠢ᠊. (We will lost the possibility to spell out ᠭ᠋᠊ ᠊ᠢ᠊  connected medial).

(3)   U+182D medial FVS2 form is ᠭ᠊,        medial FVS2 form + U+1822 is      ᠭ᠌ᠢ᠊. (This should be the two dotted feminine ligature). 

(4)   U+182D medial FVS3 form is ᠭ᠍᠊,        medial FVS3 form + U+1822 is      ᠊ᠭ᠍ᠢ᠊. (We will lost the possibility to spell out ᠭ ᠊ᠢ᠊  connected medial).

 

 

(5)   U+182D medial default form is ᠊ᠭ᠊,       medial default form + U+1822 is     ᠊ᠭᠢ᠊. (This is acceptable for me).

(6)   U+182D medial FVS1 form is ᠊ᠭ᠋᠊,        medial FVS1 form + U+1822 is      ᠊ᠭ᠋ᠢ᠊. (We will lost the possibility to spell out ᠊᠍ᠭ᠋᠊ ᠊ᠢ᠊  connected medial).

(7)   U+182D medial FVS2 form is ᠊ᠭ᠊,       medial FVS2 form + U+1822 is      ᠊ᠭ᠌ᠢ᠊. (This is acceptable for me).

(8)   U+182D medial FVS3 form is ᠊ᠭ᠍᠊,        medial FVS3 form + U+1822 is      ᠊ᠭ᠍ᠢ᠊. (This should be the two dotted feminine ligature).

 

But if the two dotted feminine ligature’s initial, medial form selector FVS1 is different, that will confuse the users.

 

My advice is adjust the position of the  U+182C and U+182D. 

Anyway, we will change a lot on U+182C and U+182D this time.

I think it is the last chance to adjust it.

 

Our suggestion for U+182C_QA is

1.      The default form of U+182C on Isolate, Initial, Medial, Final position as  ‍  

2.      The second form(FVS1) of U+182C on Isolate, Initial, Medial, Final position as N/A   

3.      The third form(FVS2) of U+182C on Isolate, Initial as ᠬ᠌᠊ ᠬ᠌᠊ ᠊ᠬ᠊ ᠊ᠬ᠌᠂ Medial, Final position not exist same with default   N/A N/A 

4.      The fourth form(FVS3) of U+182C on Isolate, Initial, Medial, Final position as N/A N/A N/A  

 

But we suggest to use FVS3 to show the two dotted ligature. 

 

suggestion for U+182D_GA is

5.      The default form of U+182C on Isolate, Initial, Medial, Final position as  ‍  

6.      The second form(FVS1) of U+182C on Isolate, Initial, Medial, Final position as N/A   

7.      The third form(FVS2) of U+182C on Isolate, Initial as ᠬ᠌᠊ ᠬ᠌᠊ ᠊ᠬ᠊ ᠊ᠬ᠌᠂ Medial, Final position not exist same with default    

8.      The fourth form(FVS3) of U+182C on Isolate, Initial, Medial, Final position as N/A   (two over ridings all come here)

 

But we suggest to use FVS3 to show the two dotted ligature.

 

If it is Ok, the change is summarized as 

 

Isolate shift one position

U+182C Isolate FVS1 => U+182C Isolate FVS2

U+182C Isolate FVS2 => U+182C Isolate FVS3

 

Isolate shift one position

U+182D Isolate FVS1 => U+182D Isolate FVS2

U+182D Isolate FVS2 => U+182D Isolate FVS3

 

Exchange the medial overriding

U+182D Medial FVS2 => U+182D Medial FVS3

U+182D Medial FVS3 => U+182D Medial FVS2

 

Exchange the Final overriding

U+182D Final FVS1 => U+182D Final FVS3

U+182D Final FVS3 => U+182D Final FVS1

 

How do you think of it ?

 

Following is the copy your explanation past here.

=====================================================================================

 

ISOLATES

I think we are in fair agreement on the isolates with the exception of the masculine dotted form used in White. Jirimutu, can you comment on this form?

FINALS

We are in uniform agreement on the finals

INITIALS

On the initials, we need to add the feminine loop to handle Endenechimeg’s example of QQIR. This should go to the next FVS slot available – FVS2. I will add this to the DS01 document and also ask Richard to add it to the site. That brings us to general agreement on the initials. I know Noto Sans and Bolorsoft will want this at FVS1, but we have had documentation on the FVS1 slot since the earliest USVList, so there probably should be no argument there.

MEDIALS

On the medials, we are dealing with 6 glyphs currently on the Font Comparator Site - . The first two  do not really merit discussion (I think) as they have been in the documentation from the very beginning – the MGWBM, the TR170, the USVList. The last two  we have already discussed and see that we are already in agreement that they are processed as finals given both the MVS model as well as the actual implementations across the board. So, our discussion really revolves only around the remaining two glyphs .  Implementation-wise I see that half of the fonts do not use the medial feminine loops as they never actually appear in isolation (Baiti, FZ, Menkhsoft, probably JadeBird). They always appear in connection with the following vowel as a ligature. Therefore, I see no need to assign an FVS slot to them. Could I ask the font designers that do display them to comment on this situation (NotoSans, White, Bolorsoft)? Do we need to specify an FVS assignment here and why? Does your font ever actually display the medial feminine glyph itself apart from its ligature companion? I am suggesting that we do not make any assignment at M+FVS2, M+FVS3 unless we can indeed verify that they are displayed. I will ask the same question for U+182D.

I am attaching a new document DS02 – displaying all known ligatures (including the 182C set) – ligatures dealing with the loop consonants only. This pdf is displayed using the Baiti font. The document is not finished and invites answers to specific questions. Comments are welcome.

 

=====================================================================================

 

Jirimutu

===============================================================

Almas Inc. 

101-0021 601 Nitto-Bldg, 6-15-11, Soto-Kanda, Chiyoda-ku, Tokyo

E-Mail: jrmt@almas.co.jp <mailto:jrmt@almas.co.jp>    Mobile : 090-6174-6115

Phone : 03-5688-2081,   Fax : 03-5688-2082

http://www.almas.co.jp/   http://www.compiere-japan.com/

http://www.mongolfont.com/

---------------------------------------------------------------

Inner Mongolia Delehi Information Technology Co. Ltd.

010010 13th floor of Uiles Hotel, No 89 XinHua east street XinCheng District, Hohhot, Inner Mongolia

Mail:  jirimutu@delehi.com <mailto:jirimutu@delehi.com>        Mobile:18647152148

Phone:  +86-471-6661969,      Ofiice： +86-471-6661995

http://www.delehi.com/

===============================================================

 

From: Greg Eck [mailto:greck@postone.net] 
Sent: Monday, November 2, 2015 11:48 AM
To: jrmt@almas.co.jp; public-i18n-mongolian@w3.org
Subject: RE: U+1867 Final

 

Hi Jirimutu,

 

Thanks for the comment on U+1887.

 

OK, could you take a critical look at all of the NP entries from 1820-18AA and see if there are any entries that you want to question?

 

Badral, Kamal, YuXin, Husele,

Could you give the NP one final critical look from top to bottom also?

 

The only things I have left on my list are the characters U+1807, U+180A, U+1885, U+1886.

 

I am working on drafting final action points now.

 

Thanks,
Greg

 

>>>>> 

Sent: Monday, November 2, 2015 10:39 AM
Subject: RE: U+1867 Final

 

According to SIBE alphabet table sibe_alphabet_table13.jpg what Siqin committed out before,

There is no final form of U+1867_SIBE_SHA, we have created one like the Mongolian S with the dot before.

I saw others created on final form with Final vowel A.or they are creating the final form for Sibe SHA like the SY,in the attached sibe_alphabet_latin.jpg.

 

It is Ok for us to take same final form with others.

 

Thanks and Best regards,

 

Jirimutu

>>>>>