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

RE: New Proposal Status

From: Greg Eck <greck@postone.net>
Date: Fri, 15 Jan 2016 01:06:18 +0000
To: Erdenechimeg Myatav <erdeely@gmail.com>
CC: "public-i18n-mongolian@w3.org" <public-i18n-mongolian@w3.org>
Message-ID: <SN1PR10MB0943C033F6D48D1562805FB2AFCD0@SN1PR10MB0943.namprd10.prod.outlook.com>
Hi Erdenechimeg,

The caveat that I did not think to mention is that the FVS4, being multi-purpose in design, would not change any existing FVS assignments, but would be the FVS of choice for future default selection. I am not for the idea of changing U+182D+FVS1_final over-ride default. I would see a new approach to the new variant forms such as the 1822 medial over-ride default and the 182D medial over-ride default in using the FVS4 even if there is an FVS3 slot available.

Thanks,
Greg


>>>>>
Sent: Friday, January 15, 2016 12:21 AM
Subject: Re: New Proposal Status

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
>>>>>

Received on Friday, 15 January 2016 01:06:53 UTC

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