RE: Final Wrapup

Hi Greg,

 

Thanks to your detailed response to me.

 

> 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.

> I do not see a problem with the current specification here. Can you be
specific in why we need to deal with the individual font developer's logic?

I am not wondering the font developer's logic. Here we select either of the
method, it is same difficulties to font developer.

 

I am talking the data manipulation difficulties will be greatly different on
this two method. 

The toggle-logic based code standard will lead a lot of extra complexity for
data manipulation.

I have prepared one example attached in this mail, hope this example make
sense to you and other members.

 

 

>I am therefore withdrawing my earlier support for the tail on U+1840,
U+1841, U+1842.

This not one big issue, if we have small tail defined in the standard to
use, we can handle this by workaround.

Or even anyone use it with small tail, the impact can be ignored. Follow
your decision.

Just wandering the small tail have not been confirmed and fixed how to
include in the standard yet.

 

 

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/

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

 

From: Greg Eck [mailto:greck@postone.net] 
Sent: Thursday, December 17, 2015 1:45 PM
To: jrmt@almas.co.jp; public-i18n-mongolian@w3.org
Subject: RE: Final Wrapup

 

Hi Jirimutu,

My responses are below in yellow highlight.

Greg

 

>>>>> 

> 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. 

There are several parties who use a toggle on the U+1828 medial - therefore
we cannot leave out the possibility in consideration a specification in the
medial. In the same way, there are others, Almas included, who do not use a
toggle in the U+1828 medial. So, we need to accommodate for both. It appears
to me then that we still need the U+1828-Medial default over-ride. I suggest
the following:



Such a specification will have to necessarily differ from the Chinese
Standard, as most likely, the Chinese based font developers will all use the
toggle.

 

 

> 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.

There are two known and identifiable cases now where an extra FVS mechanism
is needed. I would not be surprised to see the new Chinese Standard calling
for another FVS also. I think it may be time to propose an FVS4 also. The
two cases referenced then are U+1887-FifthFinal as well as this one here
U+1828-FifthMedial.

 

 

>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.

Yes

 

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. 

I am waiting on a response from Hohot on this one.

 

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. 

I have nothing more to say here as I have not had time to do further testing

 

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.

I do not see a problem with the current specification here. Can you be
specific in why we need to deal with the individual font developer's logic?



 

 

U1840_LHA Final Form

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

I think it is better to follow the Chinese Standard here and have changed
the NP accordingly back to how it was at the beginning of our discussions.
While it would appear that a tail would match the pattern of other letters
in the same block, I personally have not done the research necessary to
strongly substantiate it. I am therefore withdrawing my earlier support for
the tail on U+1840, U+1841, U+1842.

 

U1841_ZHI Final Form

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

As above.

 

Jirimutu

>>>>>