Hi Greg,
U+182C is same as U+182D.
The only difference is U+182C no dots.
Normally U+182C no final form.
But I do not no experts what they are thinking.
initial_middle_h01.jpg
initial_middle_h02.jpg
initial_middle_h03.jpg
SiqinBilige.
On 2015/10/17 0:45, Greg Eck wrote:
>
> 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.
>
> >>>>>
>
