RE: U+1822 - finalizing all variants

Hi Badral,


1.)    I think you may have a case for 1822 Final+FVS1. Can others comment here …

2.)    Already handled

3.)    Already handled

4.)    I think this would probably be considered an upper layout feature. Not sure that an FVS is necessary.

Greg
>>>>>
From: Badral S. [mailto:badral@bolorsoft.com]
Sent: Monday, October 12, 2015 9:50 PM
Subject: Re: U+1822 - finalizing all variants

Hi Greg,
Here are some images, which contains following forms.
1. Shabju form of i. F+FVS1 (tabi = fifty) Bui za, ze kho are same with this form.
We have deeply discussed about it with our linguists and Mr. Jamyansuren. We can probably manage it with our OTF rules regardless of which type of words (domestic/foriegn).
2. Normal form of i (Mori = horse)
No comment.
3. Accusative form of i (gal yg = accusative form of fire)
As previously mentioned it's also manageable by OTF rules.
4. Stretched form of i (hani = polite form of wife. For every word applicable) This form is planned to add as FVS2. It's also considerable for A E N D Ng G.
This is commonly used to write poem, letter, treatise etc. We should not consider it as calligraphic form because it's aimed to justify text manually.
We have concluded for that is really a FVS is necessary.

Badral
>>>>>