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: 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

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