RE: Final Wrapup

Hi Greg,



I have just completed reading and checking DS01.pdf. It is very good
structured and clearly listed each of the variant.



Before writing my comment for DS01. Let me answer some of your question in
this mail.



>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.

We agree the Isolate layout totally.



> 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.

Our team strongly suggest use the over-ride logic. The toggle logic will
make things tricky when we process string  manipulation.

It will lost the real meaning in substring.

We should omit the “Toggle Logic” from the entire standard if exist.  It
will make a lot of troubles when we do string manipulation.



> 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.

It is better to add one more FVS4. It is better to exclude VS** from normal
Mongolian text.



>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?

It is better to add one more FVS4. It is better to exclude VS** from normal
Mongolian text.



Following is some comment on the DS01.pdf. This document looks very good as
mentioned above.

It is almost same with our previously discussion results, except the
with-drawn 7 FVS Mis-Matches.

We can accept either of the two solution. (Personally, I prefer our previous
discussion results, it is near to perfect )

Comments bellow:



1.      U180A_NIRUGU

Siqin already write to you our comment. If we define small tail for NIRUGU
as my advice before, it is better to define with FVS1

The default NIRIGU final have other usage.

2.      U8122_I third medial form, you listed the example, NAI+FVS2+MA, --
please ignore my previous comment on the report.

3.      U1836_YA Second Medial Form (Context-driven AND also needed to
over-ride default context)

We are pending this till we communicate with our users.

For the context driven logic if it is only restricted on ‘before U1822_I‘,
maybe it is acceptable to our users.

At least we have confirmed and clearly defined the default form of the
U1836_YA Medial form and can process normally before other vowel.

And also we have confirmed there no Diphthongs spell with U1836_YA in final.
I would like to discuss this with our major users in the year end.



But if we use context driven logic to support this variant form, we need
over-ride form here.

It is not a good idea to use toggle logic. It will make a lot of trouble
when we do string manipulation as mentioned above.

Personally, our team’s preference sequence for this character solution is

1)     No context driven logic, use the explicit FVS1. - best solution

2)     Use Over-Ride third form needed, use FVS2 to over-ride to the
default. - maybe acceptable, depend on users

3)     Use “Toggle Logic” - use FVS1 to over-ride the default - It is
harmful design.



4.      U1838_WA Second Medial (context-driven )

Need to clarify the context-driven logic, “before consonant ?” or others.



But if we use context driven logic to support this variant form, we need
over-ride form here.

It is not a good idea to use toggle logic. It will make a lot of trouble
when we do string manipulation as mentioned above.

5.      U1840_LHA Final Form

It is better to select the form with small tail like current NP.



6.      U1841_ZHI Final Form

It is better to select the form with small tail like current NP.



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: 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
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