W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-i18n-mongolian@w3.org > January to March 2016

Re: New Proposal Status

From: Erdenechimeg Myatav <erdeely@gmail.com>
Date: Sun, 10 Jan 2016 16:57:15 +0100
Message-ID: <CAHE1yjBQcG1hLcXaahHyc=eihaKt+OYiGw-8F=wSV45A0yZYmQ@mail.gmail.com>
To: Greg Eck <greck@postone.net>
Cc: "public-i18n-mongolian@w3.org" <public-i18n-mongolian@w3.org>
Hi Greg,


I have looked at the proposal and I have a couple of issues with it.


1) Regarding the discussion about the MVS, I strongly agree with Jirimutu that
the treatment of MVS should be uniform, i.e. the logic should be the same
whatever the preceding letter.  Furthermore, Mongolians say that the letter
immediately preceding the MVS is in final form. I therefore feel that it is
wrong to define the forms of NA/QA/GA/YA/JA (NB I also include JA here)
that precede MVS as middle forms – they should be final forms. (In the old
proposal these forms were included twice, once as middle form and once as
final form. This is definitely wrong! But the final forms should be kept
and the middle forms removed, not the other way round.)


2) Similarly, the form of the letter A that follows NNBSP is always said to
be initial form. (More generally, all forms of all letters that have the
“crown” element are considered to be initial forms.) So I think that what
you have in the proposal as the third medial form of A should in fact be
the second initial form. (Again in the old proposal this form was included
twice, once as middle form and once as initial form, which is also
definitely wrong. So in this case the initial form should be kept and the
middle form removed, not the other way round.)


One other point I’d like to raise: in several cases one of the variant
forms of a letter has the same glyph as the base form in a given position
(e.g. the first and fourth medial forms of the letter I), the identical
variant form being presumably used to override the font rules and display
the base form instead of any variant. I wonder if it might be better to
generalise this, e.g. by introducing a variant selector which always
selects the base form of a letter irrespective of what the actual letter
is? This way it would be possible to get the base form in any context
whatever variant the font rules actually produced.



Best wishes,

Erdenechimeg




On Tue, Jan 5, 2016 at 3:12 PM, Greg Eck <greck@postone.net> wrote:

> Greetings in the New Year …
>
>
>
> Here is a status on the NP:
>
> We are current on the Ishida Font Comparator Site.
>
> We are current on the DS01 (as attached).
>
> I am looking at calling in at the next Unicode Conference in late January.
>
> There is a document listing changes that I am preparing now – basically
> covering the yellow/magenta/grey items in the DS01.
>
> The version of DS01 being submitted will see the grey items either
> disappear or turn magenta.
>
> I am waiting to hear back from Professor Quejingzhabu on some specific
> questions related to the Chinese Standard.
>
> I just realized that I forgot to mark the proposed changes on the two
> Baludas (U+1885/6) and will do that on the submitted DS01.
>
>
>
> Can I ask from several of you:
>
> Kamal, Badral, Jirimutu – have you had time to look over the items in the
> DS01 in yellow/magenta? Do you have any comments/concerns? Can I say that
> you are in agreement with the document?
>
>
>
> Everyone: You might want to take another look at the Font Comparator Site
> also under your font column and just make sure that we are representing
> your font performance correctly. If you have corrections, you can submit
> them directly to me. I will collect them and pass them as one bundle to
> Richard I.
>
>
>
> Thanks,
> Greg
>
>
>
Received on Sunday, 10 January 2016 15:57:44 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 16:07:50 UTC