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

RE: Two Final Threads - Diphthongs / Final glyph checks

From: <jrmt@almas.co.jp>
Date: Wed, 4 Nov 2015 15:39:20 +0900
To: "'Greg Eck'" <greck@postone.net>, <public-i18n-mongolian@w3.org>
Message-ID: <001701d116cb$8a032890$9e0979b0$@almas.co.jp>
Hi Greg and All

 

I have received the stamped version of the interview reply from  Inner Mongolia Educational Publishing House (内蒙古教育出版社).

Let me commit this document to all for reference and archive.

 

Thanks and Best Regards,

 

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: Wednesday, November 4, 2015 12:36 AM
To: jrmt@almas.co.jp; public-i18n-mongolian@w3.org
Subject: RE: Two Final Threads - Diphthongs / Final glyph checks

 

Hi Jirimutu,

 

Thanks for the thorough critique …

I am fine with 1-5.

For the latter part of #6, I cannot see the way clearly enough without working directly in the font to verify my/your thoughts at this point in time.

Can you give some examples on #7?

If we could have both spelling methods on #8, that would be a good comparison.

Regarding #9, I think it unreasonable to ask a user to type in an FVS for something as common as a suffix. The context is clear given the NNBSP. OT rulings will be fine here without FVS usage.

#10 should definitely have both A/E variants. This is an area for linguistic engineers probably at a national level to decide on.

 

Thanks,
Greg

 

 

>>>>> 

Sent: Tuesday, November 3, 2015 11:22 AM
Subject: RE: Two Final Threads - Diphthongs / Final glyph checks

 

Hi Greg and All,

 

I thinks we have got to final agreement on how to handle the Mongolian Diphthongs.

 

Please correct If I am mistaking anything in my summarize.

 

Firstly Compared to GB 26226-2010, GB 25914-2010 and MB font, MS font in the https://r12a.github.io/scripts/mongolian/variants

1.      We have switched U+1836_Y first medial form ( the default form) to , encoded as <U+1836>,  

2.      We have switched the second medial form of U+1836_Y to , encoded as <U+1836, FVS1>.

3.      We have Switched the first medial form (the default form) of U+1838_W is  ,  encoded as <U+1838>

4.      We have Switched the second medial form of U+1838_W is , encoded as <U+1838, FVS1>

 

5.      For the Mongolian Diphthongs, we will support both theory which is exist or non-exist.

6.      For the Mongolian Diphthongs, one can encode it as ai, ei, ii, oi, ui, oei, uei, as well as ayi, eyi, iyi, oyi, oeyi, ueyi in the medial and ay, ey, iy, oy, oey, uey.

But the the yi in the medial should encode as  <U+1836, FVS1> if use *yi, could not use any contextual condition to derive from default form.

7.      Same to the Mongolian Diphthongs used o, u, oe, ue after vowel. They can be encoded as o, u, oe, ue as well as w, but have to encode as <U+1838, FVS1> if use *w

 

 

8.      I would like to ask our linguists to give out the exact encoding sequence for following case if you use ayi, eyi, iyi, oyi, oeyi, ueyi for Mongolian Diphthongs.

 

ᠨᠠᠢ᠌ᠮᠠ - 

ᠰᠢᠢᠳᠪᠦᠷᠢ - 

ᠦᠢᠯᠡᠰ - 

ᠰᠦᠢᠯᠡᠬᠦ - 

ᠠᠤᠭ᠎ᠠ - 

ᠲᠠᠤᠯᠠᠢ - 

ᠤᠤᠯ - 

…..

 

I am wandering there will be some ambiguous encoding sequence for these word. 

 

9.      There are one issue need to make consensus between our members.

After this change do we need to change the following NNBSP suffixes encoding in DS05 document ?

Because it is using <U+1836> without FVS1. (We are ok to remain as before. We can handle NNBSP in a special rule)

 ᠢᠶᠠᠷ <U+202F><U+1822><U+1836><U+1820><U+1837> 

 ᠢᠶᠡᠷ <U+202F><U+1822><U+1836><U+1821><U+1837>

 ᠢᠶᠠᠨ <U+202F><U+1822><U+1836><U+1820><U+1828> 

 ᠢᠶᠡᠨ <U+202F><U+1822><U+1836><U+1821><U+1828>

 

10.   Do we need to support both possibility for following NNBSP suffixes encoding ? maybe there more than following.

ᠲᠠᠶ <U+202F><U+1832><U+1820><U+1822> 

ᠲᠡᠶ <U+202F><U+1832><U+1821><U+1822>

ᠲᠠᠶᠢᠭᠠᠨ <U+202F><U+1832><U+1820><U+1836><U+1822><U+182D><U+1820><U+1828> 

ᠲᠡᠶᠢᠭᠡᠨ<U+202F><U+1832><U+1821><U+1836><U+1822><U+182D><U+1821><U+1828>

 

>>>>>>>>>>>> 


image001.png
(image/png attachment: image001.png)

image002.png
(image/png attachment: image002.png)

image003.png
(image/png attachment: image003.png)

image004.png
(image/png attachment: image004.png)

Received on Wednesday, 4 November 2015 06:40:10 UTC

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