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

Final Wrapup

From: Greg Eck <greck@postone.net>
Date: Mon, 14 Dec 2015 10:29:02 +0000
To: "public-i18n-mongolian@w3.org" <public-i18n-mongolian@w3.org>
Message-ID: <SN1PR10MB0943C35C8DECBECAE5D8F399AFED0@SN1PR10MB0943.namprd10.prod.outlook.com>
Here are our current set of action points from our discussions. Please let me know if I am leaving anything out ...



1.)    Adobe Acrobat dropping NNBSP upon cut-and-paste. Jirimutu, are you going to follow-up on this one?

2.)    U+1885 Baluda / U+1886 Triple Baluda proposal to change features so that the glyphs function as marks rather than in-line letters - Does someone want to volunteer to write this up? Or guide me in the process?

3.)    Do we have agreement on the Isolate layout on the attached DS01 document? I followed the set of principles sent out in the last email. If we have agreement, then I will get with Richard Ishida and see if we can get the changes on the font comparator site.

4.)    Regarding the U+1828_NA - I don't know how many are using a toggle design to turn the NA dotting off and on. We had a problem of available FVS's at the medial location. If we say that the design is actually a toggle, it takes care of the space problem as we no longer need the FVS4 for the default over-ride. Everyone, please let me know if this is an acceptable specification. If not, then we may need to add the medial default over-ride with either VS01 or a new FVS4.

5.)    Martin, I suggest that we wait on any of the Manchu work that you have brought up. Is this OK? There will be a new Chinese standard coming out next year sometime. That might be a good time to look at the Manchu additions as they will no doubt have some of the same additions that you are suggesting.

6.)    We found one mistake in the specification during our Hohot Discussions - that of the U+1887 Second Isolate. This form is actually a final and requires a new VS assignment - either VS01 or FVS4. For now, I have changed it to the Final+FVS4 in the DS01 document. Should we propose another FVS4 or use the VS01? Either one brings a good amount of work with it. But, we might be safer in staying with the FVS set and propose FVS4. We are already looking at other situations needing the FVS4 (U+182D_Medial, possibly U+1828_Medial). What does everyone think?

7.)    FYI - The DS01 document has been fully updated and attached.

8.)    FYI - The 15 Unicode code-point glyphs (actually 13) mentioned earlier are now marked in the DS01 as being displayable only by using ZWJ. It might be good for them all to be displayable with a standard format - such as an FVS.

9.)    FYI - The six FVS "mis-matches" (U+1820, U+1828, U+182C, U+182D, U+1835, U+1836) have been backed out of the DS01 document. This makes our NP proposal compatible with the Chinese Standard except in one location (U+182D_SecondIsolate uses a ZWJ). The Font Comparator site will follow suit - sorry to ask you to do that Richard.

10.) FYI - The new variant glyphs we have agreed upon are highlighted in purple on the DS01 attached. Professor Quejingzhabu asks that we wait on pushing ahead with the specification of these as they have many of them in the works already in the new Chinese standard coming out next year. I agree with this as we might end up with conflicting specifications.

Let's see if we can get this wrapped up for the new year of 2016.

Greg


Received on Monday, 14 December 2015 10:29:43 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 16:07:45 UTC