[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> 4. Variant forms of the Mongolian Birga
> Appendix A of "Traditional Mongolian Script in the ISO/IEC 19646 and Unicode
> Standards" lists four variant forms of the Mongolian Birga (U+1800) :
> 1st variant form = U+1800 + FVS1
> 2nd variant form = U+1800 + FVS2
> 3rd variant form = U+1800 + FVS3
> 4th variant form = U+1800 + ZWJ
>
> Unicode's Standardized Variants document
> (http://www.unicode.org/Public/UNIDATA/StandardizedVariants.html) does not list
> any variants for the Mongolian Birga. Moreover, it warns "All combinations not
> listed here are unspecified and are reserved for future standardization; no
> conformant process may interpret them as standardized variants." This clearly
> means that these Birga variants should not currently be recognised. But given
> that the Birga does occur in a number of forms, either Unicode should define
>standardized
> variants for them, or add some new characters to represent them.
> Nevertheless, assuming that Appendix A of "Traditional Mongolian Script" is
> correct in providing a mechanism for distinguishing four variant forms of the
> Mongolian Birga, is it acceptable to use the ZWJ as a variant selector (as is
> the case for the 4th variant Birga) ? It's usage here seems a little suspect to
> me.
I think that it is intended to use the eqivalent Tibetian character sequences to
produce the various types of Biruga, rather than MFVSs. This does raise an issue over
the rotated varient but that perhaps could become the standard glyph for the character
in the Mongolian block.
Tim
