RE: U+1824 & U+1826

This may be a pre-classical Mongolian form?
If so, could we leave it out for now?
Professor Quejingzhabu is working on another set of specifications that deal more with the pre-Classical period now.
It is likely that the next GBxxxxx standard will have this in.
Greg

>>>>>
From: jrmt@almas.co.jp [mailto:jrmt@almas.co.jp]
Sent: Friday, October 16, 2015 9:33 AM
Subject: RE: U+1824 & U+1826
The U+1824 & U+1826 with dotted final form is not popular usage in Inner Mongolia.
I have heard that it is occurred in some historical material from linguistic experts.
It is existed in the earlier proposals and I am not sure when it is disappeared from major list like Professor Quejingzhabu's book and GB26226 etc.
We have implemented in our font as U+1826+FVS2, if it is necessary, it is better to add in encoding.
Jirimutu
>>>>>
From: Badral S. [mailto:badral@bolorsoft.com]
Sent: Thursday, October 15, 2015 7:52 PM
To: public-i18n-mongolian@w3.org<mailto:public-i18n-mongolian@w3.org>
Subject: U+1824 & U+1826
I just checked http://r12a.github.io/scripts/mongolian/variants again and found an issue at U+1824/1826.
If we should filter FVS-s strictly, then we should probably consider u & ue with drop which occurs after NA alternatively.
@Siqin & Jirumutu: Is this form exists in Inner Mongolia? If yes, how popular is it?
Badral
>>>>>