- From: Badral S. <badral@bolorsoft.com>
- Date: Thu, 5 Nov 2015 14:57:04 +0100
- To: public-i18n-mongolian@w3.org
- Message-ID: <563B6030.8020904@bolorsoft.com>
Hi all, This issue is still not closed. I want to correct it before too late is, as Michel mentioned. I think, the data destabilization is not an issue more because after our discussion/standardization, there established a destabilization anyway. Badral On 26.10.2015 17:33, Jargal wrote: > Dear All, > > I was gradually warming up for the discussion, unfortunately knew > about the list too late. > Thank you for the welcome message, Greg! > > I agree with Badral and Michel, that we should improve the things not > being afraid of data loss at this point as the data amount is not very > big at the moment and the community is still waiting for the > reasonably well developed standard. > > It is natural that when typing consonants you first get the forms > which occur in linguistically speaking (if you will) a 'strong' > position that is for the consonant a pre-vowel position. Then based on > what comes next the form is changed accordingly. > > If any party has a considerable amount of data in Unicode Mongolian > then Badral (if I understood correctly) is ready to provide a > conversion tool within a week. > > Jargal > > > On Oct 26, 2015, at 9:43 AM, Michel Suignard <michel@suignard.com > <mailto:michel@suignard.com>> wrote: > >> Andrew and Badral >> I think there is a large majority that thinks that the best thing we >> can do is to correct all the imprecision in the Unicode block >> description and the FVS list as soon as possible. I doubt there is >> too much existing data using current FVS because of its inherent >> stability between the various implementation. For many UTC there have >> been various communication about the various defects of the current >> FVS sequences and the fact that a new version was forthcoming. I had >> even an action on that specific issues for many UTCs that I left >> undone for lack of time and frankly expertise (but I knew that the >> FVS described in Unicode and 10646 were lacking). In fact, I have >> been working at a new version for the code chart for a long time and >> now with this ongoing discussion it is my hope that we will have a >> consensus in time for Unicode 9.0. I have done some work using the >> various versions of the DS01 document created by Greg Eck and am >> planning to release a new version of the Mongolian code charts as >> soon as a reasonable consensus is achieved in this list. Hopefully >> sometimes in November. >> In other words, I am convinced that UTC is very receptive at fixing >> the FVS situation, not the other way around. The sooner we fix it, >> less damage. WG2 is another matter although again I think more people >> will also be in favor of fixing broken things there as well >> (traditionally ISO is way less concerned about stability than Unicode >> is). >> Michel >> *From:*Badral S. [mailto:badral@bolorsoft.com <http://bolorsoft.com>] >> *Sent:*Sunday, October 25, 2015 1:02 PM >> *To:*public-i18n-mongolian@w3.org <mailto:public-i18n-mongolian@w3.org> >> *Subject:*Re: Issues with DA,NA,GA default medial variants >> 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 variants? >> 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. >> >> Badral >> >> 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> <mailto: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> <mailto: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 <http://www.bolorsoft.com> |www.badral.net <http://www.badral.net> >> >> Bolorsoft LLC, Selbe Khotkhon 40/4 D2, District 11, Ulaanbaatar >> >> >> >> >> -- >> Badral Sanlig, Software architect >> www.bolorsoft.com <http://www.bolorsoft.com> |www.badral.net <http://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 Thursday, 5 November 2015 13:57:35 UTC