- From: Liang Hai <lianghai@gmail.com>
- Date: Fri, 27 Jan 2017 19:10:09 +0800
- To: 吉日木図 <jrmt@almas.co.jp>
- Cc: Greg Eck <greck@postone.net>, r12a <ishida@w3.org>, public-i18n-mongolian@w3.org, OrlogJohn <foximoyi@icloud.com>, csmhjy@126.com, siqin <siqin@almas.co.jp>
Also — My group members support that we should name positional variants according to where they appear in writing instead of certain grammatical analysis. Eg, in a constructed word "ᠨᠠᠨ ᠠ" (NAN_A) we should have <initial N, medial A, final N for tsatslag, isolate tsatslag A>, and for any currently NNBSP applicable suffix the first glyph in it should be an initial form. The reason is it's a cleaner model. How the current OpenType implementation happen to have similar categorization is not our concern. We're aware that you all have been discussed this before, and we understand it might be too hard and too late to change the model of positional forms at this time. But we're here to support if you still want to give it a try. 梁海 Liang Hai
Received on Friday, 27 January 2017 11:11:02 UTC