The Unicode Consortium Discussion Forum (CLOSED)
http://unicode.org/forum/

About the MVO
http://unicode.org/forum/viewtopic.php?f=35&t=340
Page 1 of 1

Author:  tyamamot [ Sat Jun 30, 2012 7:45 am ]
Post subject:  About the MVO

All,

Because hot discussions about the MVO of UTR # 50 are being made very recently especially in Japan, and also in this official forum, I wrote a summary of my view to the issue: how the MVO definitions should be. You can read it at the following URL.

Yamamoto, Taro. About the MVO of UTR # 50. v1.12. June 30, 2012.
http://blogs.adobe.com/CCJKType/files/2012/06/TaroUTR50SortedList112.pdf

Details in it may still need further corrections and improvements, however, the content of the document outlines my current thoughts on the issue.

Regards,

Taro Yamamoto

Author:  tyamamot [ Sun Jul 01, 2012 3:49 am ]
Post subject:  Re: About the MVO

I updated this document, but the URL is unchanged.

Yamamoto, Taro. About the MVO of UTR # 50. v1.12. June 30, 2012.
http://blogs.adobe.com/CCJKType/files/2012/06/TaroUTR50SortedList112.pdf

I corrected some typos and changed the orientation of Phags-pa characters to U, and mentioned this is based on the orientation of the characters in the Unicode Character Code Charts, while fonts available today may pre-rotated the characters +90 degrees in the horizontal writing mode, so that the characters will be displayed in the UPRIGHT posture, -90 degrees rotated in Japanese vertica lines, and that this also applies to Mongolian characters.

Author:  tyamamot [ Sun Jul 01, 2012 10:00 am ]
Post subject:  Re: About the MVO

Hi all,

I modified and updated my comments about the MVO further again, based on recent bug reports and comments that Shinyu Murakami and others had kindly sent to me.

Unfortunately, the old URL no longer works, but you can read the latest version of my comments on the MVO at the following new URL.

http://blogs.adobe.com/CCJKType/files/2012/07/TaroUTR50SortedList112.pdf


Regards,

--Taro

Author:  tyamamot [ Sun Jul 01, 2012 7:22 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: About the MVO

As it seems the hot discussion about the MVO is still continuing in Japan, I would like to clarify my intention of having written this proposal as follows:

What I intend to propose in this document is a set of vertical orientations for Unicode characters, with which we can solve, if not all, some of the chief incompatibilities between multiple scripts, which may be often inevitable, with essentially minimum treatment to support good typography and with reasonable respect for the traditional usages of all the scripts used, but without our irrationally having to renounce our experience and knowledge in using any of the scripts, and without treating any of the scripts more badly than the others, in Japanese vertical lines.

I know what the MVO can do is limited. I doubt you can create perfect Japanese vertical typography only with the set of vertical orientations. However, it can be a good starting point from which you can create and improve your own fine typography composed of multiple scripts including Japanese in vertical lines. Realization of it will be beyond the scope of Unicode, but I believe the MVO can provide developers and users with a reasonable, "character-level" infrastructural base.

Author:  TKobayashi [ Sat Jul 07, 2012 7:10 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: About the MVO

tyamamot wrote:


This document is stating mainly about formatting rule of Japanese and western mixed text. As far as about formatting rule, I will not oppose Taro. This document is a good recommendation.

Second, the statement of Taro is mostly based on typography. Typography relies on glyph. But Unicode only defines character set but not glyph set.

If everybody will read this document without prejudice, he will notice that it is almost impossible to define the orientation of each character by itself.

Regards,

Tokushige Kobayashi
Antenna House, Inc.

Author:  tyamamot [ Sun Jul 08, 2012 9:35 am ]
Post subject:  Re: About the MVO

Quote:
Typography relies on glyph. But Unicode only defines character set but not glyph set.


This does not logically mean that it is impossible to define a set of standard orientations of "characters" for "Vertical Layout", because characters inherently have graphic, topological, and two dimensional properties, however much they need to be abstracted for the purposes of the character-glyph model.

Without the graphic properties of characters, you cannot define a character set from the beginning. Yes, glyphs are more concrete, finely distinguished shapes of characters.

Though the scope of such "characters" should not be limited only to type, in most cases where digital fonts are used today, characters are represented and realized by using type. Without helps from the tradition and experiences in typography, it is impossible to use and arrange type (and characters) effectively today.

Quote:
will notice that it is almost impossible to define the orientation of each character by itself.


I don't think so. If it is meant for "Vertical Layout", we can define a reasonable default set of orientations, which can also be modified or customized later, if necessary.

Author:  tyamamot [ Sun Jul 08, 2012 7:31 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: About the MVO

If you read the title of the UTR # 50 itself closely again, you can see why Mr. Kobayashi's assertion is pointless in the context of UTR # 50 at all.

The title says "UNICODE PROPERTIES FOR HORIZONTAL AND VERTICAL TEXT LAYOUT". It clarifies the context in which characters and their properties should be viewed and examined: namely, "HORIZONTAL AND VERTICAL TEXT LAYOUT". The context is clearly defined.

Still, our discussions in this context are free from any issues related to the implementation of such characters; details of glyph design, glyph substitution, glyph metrics substitution, methods for glyph positioning, rotation, scaling, and any other 2-D transformations, etc., though it is clear that there are some cases where glyph substitution is needed. Some characters may need something (some operations), but we don't need to specify in what way it should be provided.

Also, one of the reasons for our having to define this standard set of orientations is that there are ambiguous situations about some characters. I believe that UTR # 50 is based on the idea that we need to have a basic set, which is something that has been decided through prioritization of ambiguous cases, and also that it may not provide perfect solutions for all cases, but character orientations can and should be altered or customized in a different stage, if necessary.

Therefore, in the context of UTR # 50, the MVO needs to be defined, not because there are no ambiguous cases, but because there are ambiguous cases.

Mr. Kobayashi wrote:
Quote:
it is almost impossible to define the orientation of each character by itself


Before it is defined, it is implied. Without the implication, no one can define a character set.
It is also impossible to specify a glyph, without the implication. The implication includes ambiguous cases, so we need to solve the ambiguity through prioritizing the validity and general applicability of each of the possible orientations relevant to such cases.

Orientation is not only a glyph issue, but also a character issue, though its details may be finally decided on the glyph layer.

Author:  tyamamot [ Thu Jul 12, 2012 9:43 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: About the MVO

Based on recent discussions, and inputs from some experts, I updated my proposal.
The latest version can be read at the following URL:

http://blogs.adobe.com/CCJKType/files/2012/07/TaroUTR50SortedList112.pdf

There remain a few unclear points about some characters' vertical orientations. But I expect the next version will be closer to the goal.

Author:  MurakamiShinyu [ Fri Jul 27, 2012 9:56 am ]
Post subject:  Re: About the MVO

Hi,
I wrote a blog post (in Japanese) about the discussion of SVO, MVO and Taro's About the MVO of UTR # 50 proposal:
http://blog.antenna.co.jp/CSSPage/2012/07/utr50.html

To help reviewers, there I attached the data files that are originally attached in the UTR#50 draft and reflecting the Taro's MVO proposal:
http://blog.antenna.co.jp/CSSPage/tr50-taro.20120712.txt
http://blog.antenna.co.jp/CSSPage/tr50-taro.20120712.html

I hope the MVO spec will be refined and will get good consensus and that make everyone happy.


Shinyu Murakami
Antenna House

Author:  tyamamot [ Thu Aug 02, 2012 8:57 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: About the MVO

Hi,

I updated this proposal, and the latest version is available at:
http://lundestudio.com/UTR50/TaroUTR50SortedList112.pdf

Based on Fantasai's report: http://wiki.csswg.org/spec/utr50/agenda, the following changes have been made to the table in this document in order to make this proposal align better with the UTR #50 resolutions.
    1. Except the following code points, symbolic combining marks (U+20D0-U+20FF)
    are Upright: U+20D0-U+20DE, UL20E1, U+20E5-U+20FF. Only these specific ranges
    of characters are sideways.
    2. Geometric Shapes (U+25A0-U+25FF) should be Upright.
    3. Small forms (U+FE54-U+FE57, U+FE5F-U+FE62, U+FF68-U+FF6B) should be
    Upright.

But the corrections listed in the following wiki page: http://wiki.csswg.org/spec/utr50/diff20120609 are not yet reflected on this version.

Taro Yamamoto

Author:  MurakamiShinyu [ Sun Aug 05, 2012 1:04 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: About the MVO

tyamamot wrote:
I updated this proposal, and the latest version is available at:
http://lundestudio.com/UTR50/TaroUTR50SortedList112.pdf


Updated the data attached in my blog post for comparison:
http://blog.antenna.co.jp/CSSPage/tr50-taro.20120801.txt
http://blog.antenna.co.jp/CSSPage/tr50-taro.20120801.html

Shinyu Murakami

Author:  tyamamot [ Wed Aug 08, 2012 9:00 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: About the MVO

I have updated my report on the MVO of UTR # 50 again.
The vertical orientation of the U+2044 character (FRACTION SLASH) has been
corrected, and now it's R. I thank Shinyu Murakami for his suggestion.

http://lundestudio.com/UTR50/TaroUTR50SortedList112.pdf

The URL is the same as the previous one.

Regards,

Taro Yamamoto

Page 1 of 1 All times are UTC - 6 hours [ DST ]
Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group
http://www.phpbb.com/