Marcus98T
commented
1 year ago In Taiwan MOE manual, 夕 component is required to have the dot stroke (點) connected to the top and bottom stroke.
This also applies to 夜, where the manual view the bottom right as a throw stroke (捺) connected to 夕.
Also related is your own issue: #343. It depends on whether the next major version of Sans will follow the closed JP form (which will be compatible with TW MOE forms) or the open CN form for the 夕 component, the latter for which is more consistent with other Japanese fonts. And I still think the 夕 component is going to be just a stylistic difference, not a regional difference, so Adobe and the font designers shouldn't be so strict about it.
And even in JP/KR locales with traditional orthography, the 夜 component does not follow the closed form of the 夕 component, because I believe it's deemed different from the 夕 component itself.
So yes, I support option 2.
In Taiwan MOE manual, 夕 component is required to have the dot stroke (點) connected to the top and bottom stroke.
This also applies to 夜, where the manual view the bottom right as a throw stroke (捺) connected to 夕.
However, in Sans v1, this difference is ignored as stylistic difference and TW uses the same form as JP and CN, where the dot is not connected to both the top and bottom of the stroke. Shown below is v1.004.
Expand to see 夜 component in v1 Sans
This changed in v2 when HK is introduced and a new glyph for 夜 is made for HK, but this is only used for HK and not TW. Other TW glyphs are made or modified to connect the dot, and then used for both TW and HK. Shown below is v2.004.
Expand to see 夜 component in v2 Sans
There is no written record why such a change is made between v1 and v2 Sans.
The changes in Serif v2 however is not that drastic: only 夜 gets a new HK glyph which only maps to HK, and no TW glyph is modified.
Expand to see 夜 component in v2 Serif
Also noted that in HK CLIAC/HKSCS reference glyph PDF, it is explicitly mentioned that such connection issues is a stylistic difference and bears no meaningful differences.
There are 2 valid options for Source Han:
There is also the third option to only let TW has its own glyph and HK remap to CN, but it is just a waste of glyphs by that point and require 2 more glyphs for 焲 and 腋.
My personal preference is option 2: revert Sans back to v1 Sans, which is better aesthetically while being in tolerance with the style guide of Source Han.