Re: Summary of what we have covered ...

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.



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) ?
> 182C_initial_middle_feminine.jpg
> SiqinBilige.
> >>>>>

Received on Monday, 19 October 2015 01:43:00 UTC