RE: New Proposal Status

Hi Erdenechimeg,

I like the idea of a control character designed specifically for drawing out the default glyph regardless of context. I think that is a sharp idea.

I am concerned about the economy of the character however – the usage will be very small and infrequent. Can I counter-propose another idea? We design the new control character to be identical in all ways to the FVS1, FVS2, FVS3. The feature set is identical, rendering engine processing is identical. It is easy for the systems people to engineer and implement. It is easy for the font developer to implement. Easy for the end-user who is familiar with FVS functioning to use. And it can be used in the same way as the FVS1-3. However the difference is that the FVS4 has a priority usage as the default selector. It’s number one job is to “potentially” select the default. We only have three cases like this. Then we could still use it for other purposes in the rare case that the FVS1-3 are already assigned to a given position.

Greg

>>>>>
Sent: Sunday, January 10, 2016 11:57 PM
Cc: public-i18n-mongolian@w3.org
Subject: Re: New Proposal Status
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.
Erdenechimeg
>>>>>