Re: Final Wrapup

Hi Greg,

As Jirimutu mentioned,
U+180A Nirugu should have exactly same form in Initial, Medial, Final 
and Isolate default form.
If we need any kinds of variant form definition, we should use FVS1-3.

It is better to like nirugu.png, I think.

SiqinBilige.

> Hi Jirimutu,
>
> OK, on the 180A hook, maybe we make one Final-FVS1 assignment with a 
> hook – it that what you are envisioning? The default Isolate, Initial, 
> Medial, Final are all identical.
>
> I think you are one number off – U+1806 is the Todo Hyphen, U+1807 is 
> the Sibe Syllable Marker.
>
> Greg
>
> *>>>>>*
>
> *Sent:*Tuesday, October 27, 2015 10:15 AM
> *Subject:* RE: U+180A Nirugu
>
> U+180A Nirugu should have exactly same form in Initial, Medial, Final 
> and Isolate default form.
>
> Otherwise it will lost the meaning of NIRUGU ( backbone ), if we need 
> any kinds of variant form definition, we should use FVS1-3.
>
> The usage of NIRUGU should have same with ZWJ but NIRUGU have its own 
> length and rectangle shape with same width with other character’s 
> backbone part.
>
> But NIRUGU is Mongolian Character not punctuation, while U+1807  TODO 
> Hyphen is a punctuation.
>
> We use it in following case
>
> 1)Use it as ZWJ with longer backbone for initial, medial, and final 
> form of the Mongolian Characters
>
> 2)Use it between Initial E and N to distinguish between the A,ᠡ᠊ᠨᠳᠡ ·ᠠᠳᠠ
>
> 3)Use it between two word Name (People’s name and Place Name) ᠠᠯᠲᠠᠨ᠊ᠣ᠋ᠳᠣ
>
> Jirimutu


On 2015/12/14 19:29, Greg Eck 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
>