RE: New Proposal Status

Hi Jirimutu,

Let me respond on just the MA/LA/RA/WA for now. I can and will add a note to the DS01 on the final also being used before the MVS (the WA statement should be that the <U+1838><FVS1> is used ONLY before the MVS). The reason there is not such now is that there is no mis-match. The final form used before the MVS is indeed a final whereas in the case of the NA/QA/GA/YA there is indeed a positional mismatch in the commonly accepted current standard. The U+1820-A is a mis-match also but in the context of the pre-NNBSP. So, I don’t really see a lack of integrity here; they should however be dealt with as a group I agree.

Thank you for your comments,

Sent: Saturday, January 9, 2016 7:52 AM
Subject: RE: New Proposal Status

I am traveling now and I can not respond more till 13rd. I am writing from my iPhone now.

We are entirely and strongly support Badral group's opinion mentioned here.

We should treat all of the medial    form before MVS. The DS01.pdf  only listed NA,QA,GA,YA, as Medial, but ignored MA, LA, RA, WA. It is lack of integrity on the rule.

We can not just follow Chinese Standard simply. The GBT standards of Mongolian are all covered under one people's hand and it is just one recommendation standard (The T in GBT means Tui Jian) itself.

But it will not be the part of GB18030(ISO 10646 Chinese code name).

We should breakthrough some monopolic handlings which was continued 2 or 3 decade in the past. Otherwise the stabilization is unhopeful.

You asked our opinion to DS01.pdf is last mail. I was outside and was not able to respond yet.

My personal advice is

1. We should exactly express all of the context driven logic if possible. It will greatly help the developer who don't know Mongolian.

2. We are still insisting the prince use explicit FVSs or override logic in the standard. Omit toggle logic for standard.



Received on Saturday, 9 January 2016 01:38:14 UTC