adobe-fonts / source-han-sans

Source Han Sans | 思源黑体 | 思源黑體 | 思源黑體 香港 | 源ノ角ゴシック | 본고딕
Other
14.36k stars 1.3k forks source link

Missing Adobe-Japan1 glyph for U+4E08 U+E0101 󠄁󠄁󠄁丈󠄁 #491

Closed NightFurySL2001 closed 6 months ago

NightFurySL2001 commented 6 months ago

From this comment by Ken Lunde, there was a requirement in Source Han Sans project that all Adobe-Japan1 kanji should have their own CID and glyph corresponding to Adobe-Japan1 CIDs.

We have a requirement to support the Adobe-Japan1 IVD collection, which is to have unique CIDs.

Originally posted by @kenlunde in https://github.com/adobe-fonts/source-han-sans/issues/98#issuecomment-109502667

However, it seems that U+4E08 U+E0101 丈󠄁 (corresponding to AJ1 CID+13463) is missing its glyph when migrating to VF in version 2.003. There is a record in the aj16-kanji.txt file referencing the glyph, but the glyph seems to be removed in AI0-SourceHanSans. This also meant the IVD sequence is not working too.

In aj16-kanji.txt: https://github.com/adobe-fonts/source-han-sans/blob/e3bfa7062185d1ec689b07b9236e108a9a00e9c5/Resources/aj16-kanji.txt#L7159C1-L7159C23

13463   uni4E08uE0101-JP

In AI0-SourceHanSans: https://raw.githubusercontent.com/adobe-fonts/source-han-sans/release/Resources/AI0-SourceHanSans

9491    Ideographs  UROr4E  uni4E08-CN
...
62066   Ideographs  ExtAr34 uni3402uE0102-JP
62067   Generic Reserved    reserved05
62068   Ideographs  UROr4E  uni4E0EuE0101-JP

In SourceHanSans_JP_sequences.txt: https://github.com/adobe-fonts/source-han-sans/blob/ca802a6599b6fe6b33a029c003c2920eeec8389c/SourceHanSans_JP_sequences.txt#L214

4E08 E0100; Adobe-Japan1; CID+9491
4E08 E0101; Adobe-Japan1; CID+62067

Please restore this glyph for Adobe-Japan1 compatibility.

Also, for better aesthetics, suggest to revert the glyph in v2.002 to v1 U+E0101 glyph where the character face is more compact and fitting to other characters. The CN 丈 glyph should be replaced with JP too. v1: image

v2.002: image

NightFurySL2001 commented 6 months ago

Duplicate with #434

Closed as I forgot that I did reported this before at #434.... Damn GitHub search not working as good as I thought.