RE: Summary of what we have covered ...

Let's break the question into two parts ...

1.)    Do we have an attested Final U+182C? I understand that the answer is no as it is ungrammatical. Would one ever be justified in spelling a foreign word with a final U+182C? I am not sure, but it would seem not so. Can we say, then, that our question does not involve the U+182C Final?

2.)    If the above answer is "No, there is no attested form", then we are left with just the U+182C initial and medial feminine forms. On October 9, I submitted a DS02 document which attempts to show all possible mandatory ligature forms using the feminine loops. I argue that since the feminine never actually appears on its own in running script, that since it is rather the ligated form that only appears, there is really no need to specify the initial/medial forms. The isolate form allows us to talk about the glyph. No one commented on the October 9 email, so I took that to mean that there was no problem there and colored them green. Can you present your argument for the need to specify U+182C initial and medial feminine loop forms? This would mean that other developers should also state the need. My question is, "Does the glyph ever actually get painted to the screen?" If it does not get painted to the screen, then let's not specify it.

Greg

>>>>>
Sent: Friday, October 16, 2015 9:57 AM
Subject: Re: Summary of what we have covered ...

There is no  initial,middle,(final) feminine H(182C) ?
http://r12a.github.io/scripts/mongolian/variants.html
182C_initial_middle_feminine.jpg
SiqinBilige.
>>>>>