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

RE: Final Wrapup

From: <jrmt@almas.co.jp>
Date: Tue, 15 Dec 2015 10:20:31 +0900
To: "'Greg Eck'" <greck@postone.net>, <public-i18n-mongolian@w3.org>
Message-ID: <000701d136d6$cb0022a0$610067e0$@almas.co.jp>
Hi Greg,

You are doing great and hard things proceed. I can imagine how hard to
persuade Prof. Que to accept our discussion result !!!


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

I was not able to contact the proper person in Adobe yet. I would like to
ask if any member know who can response on this ?

Secondly, I have not get enough time to read your report yet. Because I am
busy on my own work in this yearend time.

We were waiting your full list document to check what is changed, what is
return back to the situation before the forum.

Or all of the discussion is rolled back ? or only small part ? and is it
acceptable ? I cannot give our answer.

Anyway, our discussion have done great things to get the hidden document
details owned by Prof. Que disclose to the word in English,

Or we are preparing the total brand new detailed definition of the Unicode
Mongolian utilization.

That will be greatly helpful to the font developer, especially, for the
foreigners who developing Mongolian Font.

As my understanding of the GB26226-2010, we can accept most of the opinion
of the standard, beside the U1836_Y medial and U1838_W medial.

I will ask this issue pending till I have confirmed with our users. If it is
acceptable or not ?

It is not the only our teams convention, it is the collected sounds from so
many users.

By the way, standard should serve for large amount users, not only for the
several researchers and linguists.

The user’s knowledge is coming from the education system, but the standard
conflict with the education system theory.

I don’t know how to reeducate all of the users to write correctly when they
use Computers or this standard.

As I know, at least 80% of the Inner Mongolian school teachers and students
dislike the standard and hate

the influence will lead the education system confusion.

I will wait till our users and decide we follow this standards or no.

Our font is developing for the users, not for others. if users not willing
to accept the mistaken things, we will follow it. No other way.

Anyway, we appreciate  you and all of members’ effort.

Thanks and Best Regards,



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/



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>

Phone:  +86-471-6661969,      Ofiice: +86-471-6661995



From: Greg Eck [mailto:greck@postone.net]
Sent: Monday, December 14, 2015 7:29 PM
To: public-i18n-mongolian@w3.org
Subject: Final Wrapup

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

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.

Received on Tuesday, 15 December 2015 01:21:25 UTC

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