RE: Report on Meeting with Prof. Quejingzhabu

Hi Greg,

 

I have just complete reading your report on meeting with Prof. Quejingzhabu.

I have several comment on the report, but they are not the big issue. Please find the attached file and check the comments.

 

>From the entire structure point of view, I think this report will lead our discussion going forward greatly.

Firstly, I can see, the isolate form comes to perfect definition till now, in this report.

 

Secondly, I can read the meaning that, the new Chinese Standard will include our a lot of discussion results, 

even the standard proposer did not say anything in this forum. I will say thanks to them if it is true. 

Or it is no matter that the idea is from where or if they are already find the old GB26226-2010 problem and taking action to correct it.

It is good progress it self actually.

 

I had one misunderstanding on your word “First and foremost reason is that our matching the Chinese Standard to the best of our abilities will be helpful in the years to come” in the report. After read several times carefully, I got your meaning. Sorry about it.

 

What I was saying before why we cannot follow the any of the standards provided by the time when our discussion began,

All of the standard like Chinese standard GB26226-2010, GB2591-2010 or TR170, or the Mongolian Standard as well as USVL Mongolian part,

Have a lot kind of detailed mistake and incompleteness. 

As you say all of these documents are out of date and we need to create one complete and widely accepted  standard document. 

Or propose the document to the UTC. 

But in my misunderstanding mentioned above, if we follow the GB26226-2010, I think it is not the correct direction.

 

Now I understood that the Chinese group have one updated Chinese Standard and we will communicate with them(or already have communicated) to decide,

the entire encoding structure and prepare how to propose to UTC for the new changes. I would like to ask if my understanding is correct or not ?

 

What I am wanting to ask is should we follow all of the decision from the new Chinese Standards ? or we can discuss with the GB proposal team to propose for UTC ?

I would like to ask GB standard is prior than UTC ? or UTC is prior than GB standard ? if so what is our W3C discussion forum’s situation ?

As my understanding, on Chinese law explanation, all of the GB standard will follow ISO/UTC. if GB different with ISO standard and they want it to be international standard, China need to propose the GB standard to ISO, is not it ?.

 

Sorry about my extra question, 

 

I am ready to read the DS01 document now and come back to my comment later.

 

Thanks and Best Regards,

 

Jirimutu

===============================================================

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/

http://www.mongolfont.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>        Mobile:18647152148

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

http://www.delehi.com/

===============================================================

 

From: Greg Eck [mailto:greck@postone.net] 
Sent: Sunday, December 6, 2015 4:17 PM
To: public-i18n-mongolian@w3.org
Subject: Report on Meeting with Prof. Quejingzhabu

 

I am attaching my notes from meetings with Professor Quejingzhabu in Hohot last week. I have had a few days now to process my thoughts from the talks and present in the attached file both the main points that we discussed as well as conclusions drawn. Comments are welcome.

 

I am suggesting the following action points:

 

ISOLATES

1.)           Come to agreement on the principles used to select the isolates for non-assigned consonants.  This set of principles will allow us to drive the actual determination of such isolates without bias on any one party’s personal views.

2.)           Given that we come to agreement on #1 above, then we propose the 10 consonantal isolates as listed (blue highlighted items).

3.)           I suggest that we propose the 15 Unicode FVS assignments as shown in the attached chart (grey highlighted items).

4.)           I suggest that we propose the 6 new variants for FVS assignments (yellow highlighted items) as final variants.

 

FVS MisMatch Situation

1.)           Change the NP such that it does not reflect the FVS Mis-Match change as discussed earlier. 

 

Special Spelling Cases – FYI only

Ligature Discussion – FYI only

Special Letters –  FYI only

 

Greg