RE: U+1824 & U+1826

Hi Greg,

 

We are Ok if Mongolian Linguists agree to leave it out. 

We are not use it in our modern Mongolian.

 

Thanks and Best Regards,

 

Jirimutu

===============================================================

Almas Inc. 

101-0021 601 Nitto-Bldg, 6-15-11, Soto-Kanda, Chiyoda-ku, Tokyo

E-Mail:  <mailto:jrmt@almas.co.jp> jrmt@almas.co.jp   Mobile : 090-6174-6115

Phone : 03-5688-2081,   Fax : 03-5688-2082

 <http://www.almas.co.jp/> http://www.almas.co.jp/
<http://www.compiere-japan.com/> http://www.compiere-japan.com/

 <http://www.mongolfont.com/> http://www.mongolfont.com/

---------------------------------------------------------------

Inner Mongolia Delehi Information Technology Co. Ltd.

010010 13th floor of Uiles Hotel, No 89 XinHua east street XinCheng
District, Hohhot, Inner Mongolia

Mail:   <mailto:jirimutu@delehi.com> jirimutu@delehi.com
Mobile:18647152148

Phone:  +86-471-6661969,      Ofiice： +86-471-6661995

 <http://www.delehi.com/> http://www.delehi.com/

===============================================================

 

From: Greg Eck [mailto:greck@postone.net] 
Sent: Saturday, October 17, 2015 12:45 AM
To: jrmt@almas.co.jp; 'Badral S.' <badral@bolorsoft.com>;
public-i18n-mongolian@w3.org
Subject: 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>  [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

>>>>>