RE: Presentation Documents to the UTC on Tuesday

Hi Greg,

Sorry for making late comments.

I read the FVS Mismatch document. Here are a few comments.


1.       I don’t understand this:
-
The issue here is that the Chinese Standard says that a given variant will be in one of the four positions (isolate, initial, medial, final), an FVS assignment is made based on that premise, and the font rendering machine determines the position to be different.
-

I think more explanation is needed to clarify who is making FVS assignments, what the effects are, and so forth.


2.       This may also need clarification:
-
This results in confusion between the new font developer and his/her font design/implementation.
-

Do you mean “This confuses font developers because they aren’t sure what FVS assignments to make.” ?


3.       In the second paragraph, you say:
-
It is the FVS specification where we find variation and duplicity.
-
I don’t think you mean “duplicity” (which has a connotation in English of evil intent). I think you mean “duplication”?

Thanks,

Addison

From: Greg Eck [mailto:greck@postone.net]
Sent: Monday, January 25, 2016 2:11 AM
To: public-i18n-mongolian@w3.org
Subject: Presentation Documents to the UTC on Tuesday

Hello all,

The papers to be reviewed with the UTC on Tuesday are just about done. I am attaching the first two now as it is so close to the deadline.
The 3 main areas are:

a.)    Complete review of the Standardized Variants Table with suggestions for improvement/refinement

b.)    Analysis of the FVS Mis-Match situation and recommendations to reconcile the issue

c.)     Baludas U+1885 / U+1886 – proposed change of general category

I will submit the papers tomorrow.
Comments are welcome – sorry that I could not give more advance notice.

Greg