search

w3c / mlreq

Mongolian Layout Requirements
https://www.w3.org/International/mlreq/
23 stars 12 forks source link

U+1822 medi missing glyph in 1.2.2 #14

Closed r12a closed 6 years ago

r12a commented 6 years ago

In addition to it's errors, the list of glyphs in TUS is missing some glyph forms that have been identified in DS01 and WG2 (and agreed with font experts over the past couple of years). One of those glyph shapes is screen shot 2017-09-01 at 18 51 52 which is an alternate medial form for U+1822. See https://r12a.github.io/mongolian-variants/#char1822

Why is this omitted from the chart in 1.2.2 ?

lianghai commented 6 years ago

The double-long-tooth variant for I.medi is desired for a phonetic encoding when I.medi is precede by a vowel and the preceding vowel doesn't already end with a long-tooth yet.

— But it's not relevant for a graphetic approach. No matter how hard people debate on it, be it <I> or <Y> or <Y hookless, I> or what, graphetically it's a sequence of graphemes: <long tooth, long tooth>. Therefore we don't even try to add it to the variant set of TUS 10.0.

See also section 2.3.

r12a commented 6 years ago

ok, thanks for the explanation.

I guess my confusion was more with what's the table sets out to show in 1.2.2. I saw a cell representing U+1820 A isol 3, which iiuc is composed of two graphetic characters, and so assumed that things like double long tooth above should also appear in the table. I guess it depends on what 'variant set' means - i was trying to work that out by looking at what's in the table. I suppose i'm not entirely clear about what that table represents and what belongs in and what doesn't.

lianghai commented 6 years ago

Ah I see. The variant set is defined in section 1.2.1 (ie, Unicode 10.0 with editorial and mismatch corrections). I'll clarify and emphasize this in the next revision. Actually, I plan to move section 1.2 to appendix because I've realized that looking at the reanalysis without seeing examples first can be confusing.