- From: Andrew West <andrewcwest@gmail.com>
- Date: Mon, 14 Dec 2015 22:32:35 +0100
- To: Greg Eck <greck@postone.net>
- Cc: "public-i18n-mongolian@w3.org" <public-i18n-mongolian@w3.org>
Hi Greg, I can write up a baluda document for the next UTC meeting if you like (but I won't have time to do it until after the new year). Andrew On 14 December 2015 at 11:29, Greg Eck <greck@postone.net> wrote: > 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 21:33:26 UTC