Re: New Proposal Status

Hi Greg,

In principle I don't see any problem with your counter suggestion. The only
thing that I can see that might be an issue is that the table of variants
might become a little confusing - for example, for the final forms of GA
(see attached picture), the second final form would then be generated using
FVS4 instead of FVS1 and it then seems a little strange that the third
final form is generated with FVS2. Would it perhaps be possible to move the
form that is identical to the default form to the bottom of the list of
variants in every case? (i.e. for final GA this would mean switching over
what are currently the second and third final forms) Admittedly this would
still leave gaps in the variant selector sequence - we would have the
second final form generated by FVS1 and the third by FVS4 - but to me at
least that seems less confusing and people could probably live with it.

Erdenechimeg


On Thu, Jan 14, 2016 at 3:22 PM, Greg Eck <greck@postone.net> wrote:

> 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
>
> >>>>>
>
>
>