Fwd: RE: FVS Assignment Mismatch Wrapup

i'm looking through the mail archive to pull out links for the document 
log, and i came across this email which bounced in September because the 
attachments were too big.

i'm resending so that we have the attachments in the archive.

ri




-------- Forwarded Message --------
Subject:  [Moderator Action (size limit exceeded)] RE: FVS Assignment
Mismatch Wrapup
Date:  Sun, 13 Sep 2015 07:09:25 +0000
From:  jrmt@almas.co.jp
To:  'Greg Eck' <greck@postone.net>, public-i18n-mongolian@w3.org



Hi Greg,

I have talked about the override in separated mails.

It is ok for us to accept the override definition.

For the attached file DS01 Mongolian Base, Positional, Variant Forms -
for discussion.pdf

I have one reminds for the difference between Chinese Standard GB
26226-2010.

The GB 26226-2010 listed as bellow

1836     1836+ZWJ     (x_xx) MONGOLIAN LETTER YA

----Medial form

ZWJ+1836+FVS1+ZWJ
https://r12a.github.io/scripts/mongolian/v/1836i.png First Medial Form

ZWJ+1836+ZWJ https://r12a.github.io/scripts/mongolian/v/1836m.png Second
Medial Form

1838     1838+ZWJ     (x_xx) MONGOLIAN LETTER YA

----Medial form

ZWJ+1836+ZWJ https://r12a.github.io/scripts/mongolian/v/1838i.png First
Medial Form

ZWJ+1836+FVS1+ZWJ
https://r12a.github.io/scripts/mongolian/v/1838m.png Second Medial Form

What I want to say here is

1.The GB 26226-2010 definition of the Name and Code of the Medial YA is
contradictory.

2.The GB 26226-2010 definition of Medial WA is not same with the file DS01.

3.

Please check it on the GB 26226-2010 page 47, 48. Same with the GB
25914-2010 (Traditional Mongolian Part) page 30, 31.

I have attached the images in this mail.

The GB 25914-2010, listed one the Medial YA example and the example have
same encoding for both forms of Medial YA.

For this reason, It is better to mark on these two character medial form
as Yellow and we can discuss how to refine it in the later.

Thanks and 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:* Saturday, September 12, 2015 6:21 PM
*To:* public-i18n-mongolian@w3.org
*Subject:* FVS Assignment Mismatch Wrapup

I am ready to wrap up our discussion on the over-rides and the
mis-matches at 1820, 1828, 182C, 182D, 1835, 1836. I plan to use the
DS01 document to communicate to the UTC our suggestions on
specifications for the standardized variants that differ from the
Chinese Standard.

*If there are other burning issues that you want to bring up, please do
so now.*I think we have seen that there is always going to be further
specification that we can do and have to stop someplace. Case in point
is Jirimutu’s solo word example of DUEGER (as distinct from the suffix
form) and the question of how to obtain the proper form for the UE. It
is not in the current specification. We are stopping short of a new
line-item specification as it will only lead to more. But the four forms
as discussed under the OVER-RIDES remain in the document with the main
example discussed.

Thank you for the good discussion here,

Greg