RE: New Proposal Status

Hi Greg,


>Because NNBSP(202F) is word separator, 
Siqin means here that NNBSP model defined the following characters are all initial form as we discussed before.


Just to correct his expression “word separator”, it is not mean word breaker as we already have agreed in this discussion forum.


Thanks and Best Regards,




Almas Inc. 

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

E-Mail:  <>   Mobile : 090-6174-6115

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

 <>    <>




From: siqin [] 
Sent: Thursday, January 14, 2016 11:30 AM
To: Greg Eck <>; Erdenechimeg Myatav <>; Jirimuto <>; Badral ( <>
Subject: Re: New Proposal Status


Hi Greg,

Because NNBSP(202F) is word separator, 
so i(1822,185E,1873),u(1824),ue(1826) as genetive word better to define as Isolate form, not final form.
Same reason, i(1822,185E,1873),u(1824),ue(1826) in genetive words iyan,iyen,un,ud,uen,ued better to have a Initial form like d(1833) and y(1836).



On 2016/01/14 2:22, Greg Eck wrote:

Hi Erdenechimeg, Badral, Jirimutu,


I have added back the argument for the FVS MisMatch. Please look over for comment and typos.

We can discuss the definition of the “FVS4” tomorrow. Issue at stake is the need to specify a U+1887_FifthVariant which is not a default positional glyph.

Also U+180A as brought up by Jirimutu.

Other issues … ?


Thanks all for your good comments,




Received on Thursday, 14 January 2016 02:45:36 UTC