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

Hi Badral,
Can you give an image of the “separated medial form” so that we are crystal clear on which glyph we are talking about?
I am not sure what this is referring to.
Thanks,
Greg
>>>>>
Sent: Thursday, November 19, 2015 10:31 PM
Subject: Re: Issues with DA,NA,GA default medial variants

We have decided, that we don't change our implementation (BS column) of medial default form of DA, NA, GA due to following reasons.
1. Logic and Ambiguation
I already mentioned the representation logic in my previous emails. Now plus:
NA is distinguished only by dot from A.
GA is distinguished only by dot from QA.
DA is distinguished only by horizontal tie from TA.

2. Established almost no destabilization
As Jirimutu described there exist almost no destabilization because no FVSs stored in middle of a word. https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-i18n-mongolian/2015OctDec/0123.html

(cutting:

Actually we are not typing and storing FVS1 in the complete Mongolian Word actually,

It is automatically been selecting correct display form in the word.

Only when we show the separated Medial Form individually, the FVS1 is necessary.

For this reason, maybe you are misunderstanding the encodings.
)
I didn't understand what is the separated Medial Form. If it's not ISOLATED one, then we should use ZWJ or?
In our stem database, there exist no stem in middle form of DA, NA, GA with FVSx. The most words in Greg's example are initial DA which is also stored in our DB with FVS1 except suffixes. (Dun and Dugnelt stored in our DB also with FVS because it's an initial second form of DA.)
I think, the misunderstanding was established by magic of OT grammar. The actual problem could be just changing OT grammar rules for font developers. If someone has difficulties, we are ready to help.
Can you accept it Jirimutu?

Greg: Please accept and update your NP column as we requested unless you have contra arguments.

cheers,
Badral
>>>>>