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

RE: Presentation Documents to the UTC on Tuesday

From: Greg Eck <greck@postone.net>
Date: Tue, 26 Jan 2016 06:41:01 +0000
To: "Phillips, Addison" <addison@lab126.com>, "public-i18n-mongolian@w3.org" <public-i18n-mongolian@w3.org>
Message-ID: <SN1PR10MB0943621DFA869F95AA6CE193AFD80@SN1PR10MB0943.namprd10.prod.outlook.com>
Hi Addison,


1.)    I have written up a statement with more detail as attached.

2.)    Another statement in the attached to take this into account.

3.)    Thank you for noting this slip-up. I will change this to duplication.

Thanks,
Greg

>>>>>
Sent: Tuesday, January 26, 2016 5:01 AM
Subject: RE: Presentation Documents to the UTC on Tuesday

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
>>>>>
Received on Tuesday, 26 January 2016 06:41:36 UTC

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