Let's look at U+182C together ...
ISOLATES
I think we are in fair agreement on the isolates with the exception of the masculine dotted form used in White. Jirimutu, can you comment on this form?
FINALS
We are in uniform agreement on the finals
INITIALS
On the initials, we need to add the feminine loop to handle Endenechimeg's example of QQIR. This should go to the next FVS slot available - FVS2. I will add this to the DS01 document and also ask Richard to add it to the site. That brings us to general agreement on the initials. I know Noto Sans and Bolorsoft will want this at FVS1, but we have had documentation on the FVS1 slot since the earliest USVList, so there probably should be no argument there.
MEDIALS
On the medials, we are dealing with 6 glyphs currently on the Font Comparator Site - [cid:image001.jpg@01D102CE.27B580E0] [cid:image002.jpg@01D102CE.27B580E0] [cid:image003.jpg@01D102CE.27B580E0] [cid:image004.jpg@01D102CE.27B580E0] [cid:image005.jpg@01D102CE.27B580E0] [cid:image006.jpg@01D102CE.27B580E0] . The first two [cid:image001.jpg@01D102CE.27B580E0] [cid:image002.jpg@01D102CE.27B580E0] do not really merit discussion (I think) as they have been in the documentation from the very beginning - the MGWBM, the TR170, the USVList. The last two [cid:image005.jpg@01D102CE.27B580E0] [cid:image006.jpg@01D102CE.27B580E0] we have already discussed and see that we are already in agreement that they are processed as finals given both the MVS model as well as the actual implementations across the board. So, our discussion really revolves only around the remaining two glyphs [cid:image003.jpg@01D102CE.27B580E0] [cid:image004.jpg@01D102CE.27B580E0] . Implementation-wise I see that half of the fonts do not use the medial feminine loops as they never actually appear in isolation (Baiti, FZ, Menkhsoft, probably JadeBird). They always appear in connection with the following vowel as a ligature. Therefore, I see no need to assign an FVS slot to them. Could I ask the font designers that do display them to comment on this situation (NotoSans, White, Bolorsoft)? Do we need to specify an FVS assignment here and why? Does your font ever actually display the medial feminine glyph itself apart from its ligature companion? I am suggesting that we do not make any assignment at M+FVS2, M+FVS3 unless we can indeed verify that they are displayed. I will ask the same question for U+182D.
I am attaching a new document DS02 - displaying all known ligatures (including the 182C set) - ligatures dealing with the loop consonants only. This pdf is displayed using the Baiti font. The document is not finished and invites answers to specific questions. Comments are welcome.
Thanks,
Greg
