Re: Final Wrapup

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