RE: Bordering clearly between Mordern Mongolian and Ancient Mongolian solution.

Hi Jirimutu,

I have not written on your post yet – sorry for the delay.

As to the WG2 #65 L2/16-309 proposal (http://www.unicode.org/L2/L2016/16309-mongolian-adds.pdf ), I have suggested  that we consider the content in three phases …

Phase I – make sure that the Mongolian section of standardizedvariants.txt document is clear and without ambiguity. There is a proposal at http://www.unicode.org/L2/L2017/17035-mongolian-std-var.pdf . The final proposed version is attached for user comment. It was suggested in today’s UTC meeting that the “feminine” label should be removed. I highly agree as there are cases where a given sequence can be used both in a feminine word as well as a masculine. Moreover, there is no need for a fourth index as you have a full specification with a.) Unicode code-point (U+1800 – U+18FF) b.) Position (isolate, initial, medial, final) and c.) Variant number (first, second, third, etc.). This phase is just about finished.

Phase II – deals with the modern and accepted additional sequences that we all pretty much agree on. These are the items in violet in the DS01 as attached. Comments on the violet sections of the DS01 are welcome. Regarding the issue of the use of the VSxx series as a new variation selector, I still do not have a working version of this. There are some who are assisting me on this now for which I am grateful. Anyone who has successfully implemented a VSxx sequence using a Mongolian font, please let me know. I am struggling with it still. So, I agree strongly with all here, we must have a VSxx sequence working first and then it needs to be fully tested and reproducible on various fonts before we can suggest the sequence.
This phase is in process with discussion between myself and the IMU team.
Let’s open it up to the wider audience.
I strongly agree that we need to work towards clearing up the modern sequences before we move forward with discussion on any more archaic forms.

Phase III – deals with the archaic forms suggested and demands much discussion.

Greg

>>>>>
On Wed, Jan 25, 2017 at 6:19 PM, jrmt@almas.co.jp<mailto:jrmt@almas.co.jp> <jrmt@almas.co.jp<mailto:jrmt@almas.co.jp>> wrote:
(Resending by my registered mail address.)

Hi Greg & Richard Ishida

I am reading Mongolian Variant Form list on https://r12a.github.io/mongolian-variants/ now.
We have got another one additional column WG2, that is sourced from the proposals in L2/16-309, Proposed additions for Mongolian in 5th edition of UCS<http://www.unicode.org/L2/L2016/16309-mongolian-adds.pdf> (26 October, 2016).

I did read the original proposal documents in Inner Mongolia, but it was slightly different with this final version.
I think this L2/16-309 document is the final version of the proposal to WG2 from Chinese government.

Before getting into detailed discussion, I should introduce the current situation of this document in Inner Mongolia.
This document is not widely accepted by most of the Inner Mongolian Experts till now.
There are a lot of Mongolian people are discussing and arguing on this proposals making more confusion on Mongolian Unicode Encoding.
Most of the end users are angering at the proposed experts are only concentrating on Ancient Mongolian and clearly ignoring the Modern Mongolian Usage.
Currently, the Modern Mongolian Unicode part have not been able to get reach to stabilized and unified status.
All of the Mongolian users are greatly confused the implementation differences and are strongly expecting all of them unified on one encoding rule as soon as possible.

According to current situation, we should primarily concentrate our all discussion on Modern Mongolian part (include Mongolian, Todo, Sibe, Manchu) is the proper approach.
After get the Modern Mongolian stabilized, we can continue to discuss the Ancient Mongolian part to get broaden ability to handle all of the history materials.

When we are implementing the Modern Mongolian part of the Encoding, if we discuss them with the Ancient Mongolian part,

1.       It will become long term discussion or endless argument.

2.       The Ancient Mongolian character variant occupies the Modern Mongolian Encoding space, and lead the FVSs shortage. (L2/16-309 already introduced VS1, VS2…).

Here I would like to introduce one Bordering Principle for Modern Mongolian and Ancient Mongolian.

1.    For the Modern Mongolian Variant Form, we use FVS1, FVS2, FVS3.

2.    For the Ancient Mongolian Variant Form, we use VS1, VS2, VS3, VS4,……..

Currently, in our DS01, we are facing one FVS shortage for U182D_GA medial form.

3.    I propose we pull all of the U182C_QA and U182D_GA, feminine form[https://r12a.github.io/mongolian-variants/i/081.png]into the Ancient Mongolian.

It will make the Modern Mongolian Encoding more easy and more clear.(DS01 already put the medial U182C_QA,and U182D_GA)


I would like to ask all of your opinion on this and expect to get agreement on it.
It will give our Mongolian End user more understandable, clear encoding solution and not restricting the researchers requirements.

I would like to ask Chen Zhuang, if you are reading this forum，please ask if Professor Que agrees this proposals or not.
Otherwise, It is hardly to persuade all of the Mongolian people who are arguing against him now, I think.

Thanks and Best regards,

Jirimutu
>>>>>