Kanit V2 for Google Fonts

Hello :)

I restructured the repo (please don't forget to add names and contacts in CONTRIBUTORS and AUTHORS files)
Fixed few inconsistencies and missing glyphs
Updated font info and vertical metrics
Refined kerning (because of clashing and inconsistencies). But still, there will be kerning issues because of the absence of composites (and anchors), metric key and interpolable masters.
Some diacritics are not optimized for kerning (circumflex-grave for example)
Please pay attention to the opentype features, I finally had to regenerate them for export. If something doesn't work as usual, I saved a copy of your original ccmp feature.
Tell me if you validate this state and the fonts will be pushed as they are to Google repo), or if there is any issue to fix before that.

Fontbakery report

Fontbakery version: 0.7.26

[1] Family checks

🔥 FAIL: Do we have the latest version of FontBakery installed?

* [com.google.fonts/check/fontbakery_version](https://font-bakery.readthedocs.io/en/latest/fontbakery/profiles/universal.html#com.google.fonts/check/fontbakery_version) * 🔥 **FAIL** Unable to detect what's the latest version of FontBakery available. Maybe we're offline? Please check Internet access and try again.

[7] Kanit-Black.ttf

⚠ WARN: Checking OS/2 achVendID.

* [com.google.fonts/check/vendor_id](https://font-bakery.readthedocs.io/en/latest/fontbakery/profiles/googlefonts.html#com.google.fonts/check/vendor_id)

--- Rationale ---

Microsoft keeps a list of font vendors and their respective contact info. This
list is updated regularly and is indexed by a 4-char "Vendor ID" which is
stored in the achVendID field of the OS/2 table.

Registering your ID is not mandatory, but it is a good practice since some
applications may display the type designer / type foundry contact info on some
dialog and also because that info will be visible on Microsoft's website:

https://docs.microsoft.com/en-us/typography/vendors/

This check verifies whether or not a given font's vendor ID is registered in
that list or if it has some of the default values used by the most common font
editors.

Each new FontBakery release includes a cached copy of that list of vendor IDs.
If you registered recently, you're safe to ignore warnings emitted by this
check, since your ID will soon be included in one of our upcoming releases.

* ⚠ **WARN** OS/2 VendorID value 'CDK' is not yet recognized. If you registered it recently, then it's safe to ignore this warning message. Otherwise, you should set it to your own unique 4 character code, and register it with Microsoft at https://www.microsoft.com/typography/links/vendorlist.aspx [code: unknown]

⚠ WARN: Stricter unitsPerEm criteria for Google Fonts.

* [com.google.fonts/check/unitsperem_strict](https://font-bakery.readthedocs.io/en/latest/fontbakery/profiles/googlefonts.html#com.google.fonts/check/unitsperem_strict)

--- Rationale ---

Even though the OpenType spec allows unitsPerEm to be any value between 16 and
16384, the Google Fonts project aims at a narrower set of reasonable values.

The spec suggests usage of powers of two in order to get some performance
improvements on legacy renderers, so those values are acceptable.

But value of 500 or 1000 are also acceptable, with the added benefit that it
makes upm math easier for designers, while the performance hit of not using a
power of two is most likely negligible nowadays.

Another acceptable value is 2000. Since TT outlines are all integers (no
floats), then instances in a VF suffer rounding compromises, and therefore a
1000 UPM is too small because it forces too many such compromises.

Therefore 2000 is a good 'new VF standard', because 2000 is a simple 2x
conversion from existing fonts drawn on a 1000 UPM, and anyone who knows what
10 units can do for 1000 UPM will know what 20 units does too.

Additionally, values above 2048 would result in filesize increases with not
much added benefit.

* ⚠ **WARN** Even though unitsPerEm (1000) in this font is reasonable. It is strongly advised to consider changing it to 2000, since it will likely improve the quality of Variable Fonts by avoiding excessive rounding of coordinates on interpolations. [code: legacy-value]

⚠ WARN: Glyphs are similiar to Google Fonts version?

* [com.google.fonts/check/production_glyphs_similarity](https://font-bakery.readthedocs.io/en/latest/fontbakery/profiles/googlefonts.html#com.google.fonts/check/production_glyphs_similarity) * ⚠ **WARN** Following glyphs differ greatly from Google Fonts version: [uni0E43, uni0E44, uni0E42]

⚠ WARN: Check if each glyph has the recommended amount of contours.

* [com.google.fonts/check/contour_count](https://font-bakery.readthedocs.io/en/latest/fontbakery/profiles/googlefonts.html#com.google.fonts/check/contour_count)

--- Rationale ---

Visually QAing thousands of glyphs by hand is tiring. Most glyphs can only be
constructured in a handful of ways. This means a glyph's contour count will
only differ slightly amongst different fonts, e.g a 'g' could either be 2 or 3
contours, depending on whether its double story or single story.

However, a quotedbl should have 2 contours, unless the font belongs to a
display family.

This check currently does not cover variable fonts because there's plenty of
alternative ways of constructing glyphs with multiple outlines for each feature
in a VarFont. The expected contour count data for this check is currently
optimized for the typical construction of glyphs in static fonts.

* ⚠ **WARN** This check inspects the glyph outlines and detects the total number of contours in each of them. The expected values are infered from the typical ammounts of contours observed in a large collection of reference font families. The divergences listed below may simply indicate a significantly different design on some of your glyphs. On the other hand, some of these may flag actual bugs in the font such as glyphs mapped to an incorrect codepoint. Please consider reviewing the design and codepoint assignment of these to make sure they are correct. The following glyphs do not have the recommended number of contours: Glyph name: uni0E10 Contours detected: 2 Expected: 1 or 5 Glyph name: fi Contours detected: 1 Expected: 3 Glyph name: uni0E10 Contours detected: 2 Expected: 1 or 5 [code: contour-count]

⚠ WARN: Is there kerning info for non-ligated sequences?

* [com.google.fonts/check/kerning_for_non_ligated_sequences](https://font-bakery.readthedocs.io/en/latest/fontbakery/profiles/googlefonts.html#com.google.fonts/check/kerning_for_non_ligated_sequences)

--- Rationale ---

Fonts with ligatures should have kerning on the corresponding non-ligated
sequences for text where ligatures aren't used (eg
https://github.com/impallari/Raleway/issues/14).

* ⚠ **WARN** GPOS table lacks kerning info for the following non-ligated sequences: - f + i - i + l [code: lacks-kern-info]

⚠ WARN: Check mark characters are in GDEF mark glyph class)

* [com.google.fonts/check/gdef_spacing_marks](https://font-bakery.readthedocs.io/en/latest/fontbakery/profiles/gdef.html#com.google.fonts/check/gdef_spacing_marks)

--- Rationale ---

Glyphs in the GDEF mark glyph class should be non-spacing.
Spacing glyphs in the GDEF mark glyph class may have incorrect
anchor positioning that was only intended for building composite glyphs
during design.

* ⚠ **WARN** The following spacing glyphs may be in the GDEF mark glyph class by mistake: acutecomb, dotbelowcomb, gravecomb, hookabovecomb, nikhahit_maiChattawathai, nikhahit_maiChattawathai.narrow, nikhahit_maiEkthai, nikhahit_maiEkthai.narrow, nikhahit_maiThothai, nikhahit_maiThothai.narrow and 54 more. [code: spacing-mark-glyphs]

⚠ WARN: Check mark characters are in GDEF mark glyph class

* [com.google.fonts/check/gdef_mark_chars](https://font-bakery.readthedocs.io/en/latest/fontbakery/profiles/gdef.html#com.google.fonts/check/gdef_mark_chars)

--- Rationale ---

Mark characters should be in the GDEF mark glyph class.

* ⚠ **WARN** The following mark characters could be in the GDEF mark glyph class: U+0300, U+0301, U+0302, U+0303, U+0304, U+0306, U+0307, U+0308, U+0309, U+030A, U+030B, U+030C, U+031B, U+0323, U+0324, U+0326, U+0327, U+0328, U+032E, U+0331, U+0E31, U+0E34, U+0E35, U+0E36, U+0E37, U+0E38, U+0E39, U+0E3A, U+0E47, U+0E48, U+0E49, U+0E4A, U+0E4B, U+0E4C, U+0E4D and U+0E4E [code: mark-chars]

[7] Kanit-BlackItalic.ttf

⚠ WARN: Checking OS/2 achVendID.

* [com.google.fonts/check/vendor_id](https://font-bakery.readthedocs.io/en/latest/fontbakery/profiles/googlefonts.html#com.google.fonts/check/vendor_id)

--- Rationale ---

Microsoft keeps a list of font vendors and their respective contact info. This
list is updated regularly and is indexed by a 4-char "Vendor ID" which is
stored in the achVendID field of the OS/2 table.

Registering your ID is not mandatory, but it is a good practice since some
applications may display the type designer / type foundry contact info on some
dialog and also because that info will be visible on Microsoft's website:

https://docs.microsoft.com/en-us/typography/vendors/

This check verifies whether or not a given font's vendor ID is registered in
that list or if it has some of the default values used by the most common font
editors.

Each new FontBakery release includes a cached copy of that list of vendor IDs.
If you registered recently, you're safe to ignore warnings emitted by this
check, since your ID will soon be included in one of our upcoming releases.

⚠ WARN: Stricter unitsPerEm criteria for Google Fonts.

* [com.google.fonts/check/unitsperem_strict](https://font-bakery.readthedocs.io/en/latest/fontbakery/profiles/googlefonts.html#com.google.fonts/check/unitsperem_strict)

--- Rationale ---

Even though the OpenType spec allows unitsPerEm to be any value between 16 and
16384, the Google Fonts project aims at a narrower set of reasonable values.

The spec suggests usage of powers of two in order to get some performance
improvements on legacy renderers, so those values are acceptable.

But value of 500 or 1000 are also acceptable, with the added benefit that it
makes upm math easier for designers, while the performance hit of not using a
power of two is most likely negligible nowadays.

Another acceptable value is 2000. Since TT outlines are all integers (no
floats), then instances in a VF suffer rounding compromises, and therefore a
1000 UPM is too small because it forces too many such compromises.

Therefore 2000 is a good 'new VF standard', because 2000 is a simple 2x
conversion from existing fonts drawn on a 1000 UPM, and anyone who knows what
10 units can do for 1000 UPM will know what 20 units does too.

Additionally, values above 2048 would result in filesize increases with not
much added benefit.

⚠ WARN: Glyphs are similiar to Google Fonts version?

⚠ WARN: Check if each glyph has the recommended amount of contours.

* [com.google.fonts/check/contour_count](https://font-bakery.readthedocs.io/en/latest/fontbakery/profiles/googlefonts.html#com.google.fonts/check/contour_count)

--- Rationale ---

Visually QAing thousands of glyphs by hand is tiring. Most glyphs can only be
constructured in a handful of ways. This means a glyph's contour count will
only differ slightly amongst different fonts, e.g a 'g' could either be 2 or 3
contours, depending on whether its double story or single story.

However, a quotedbl should have 2 contours, unless the font belongs to a
display family.

This check currently does not cover variable fonts because there's plenty of
alternative ways of constructing glyphs with multiple outlines for each feature
in a VarFont. The expected contour count data for this check is currently
optimized for the typical construction of glyphs in static fonts.

⚠ WARN: Is there kerning info for non-ligated sequences?

--- Rationale ---

Fonts with ligatures should have kerning on the corresponding non-ligated
sequences for text where ligatures aren't used (eg
https://github.com/impallari/Raleway/issues/14).

* ⚠ **WARN** GPOS table lacks kerning info for the following non-ligated sequences: - f + i - i + l [code: lacks-kern-info]

⚠ WARN: Check mark characters are in GDEF mark glyph class)

* [com.google.fonts/check/gdef_spacing_marks](https://font-bakery.readthedocs.io/en/latest/fontbakery/profiles/gdef.html#com.google.fonts/check/gdef_spacing_marks)

--- Rationale ---

Glyphs in the GDEF mark glyph class should be non-spacing.
Spacing glyphs in the GDEF mark glyph class may have incorrect
anchor positioning that was only intended for building composite glyphs
during design.

⚠ WARN: Check mark characters are in GDEF mark glyph class

* [com.google.fonts/check/gdef_mark_chars](https://font-bakery.readthedocs.io/en/latest/fontbakery/profiles/gdef.html#com.google.fonts/check/gdef_mark_chars)

--- Rationale ---

Mark characters should be in the GDEF mark glyph class.

[7] Kanit-Medium.ttf

⚠ WARN: Checking OS/2 achVendID.

* [com.google.fonts/check/vendor_id](https://font-bakery.readthedocs.io/en/latest/fontbakery/profiles/googlefonts.html#com.google.fonts/check/vendor_id)

--- Rationale ---

Microsoft keeps a list of font vendors and their respective contact info. This
list is updated regularly and is indexed by a 4-char "Vendor ID" which is
stored in the achVendID field of the OS/2 table.

Registering your ID is not mandatory, but it is a good practice since some
applications may display the type designer / type foundry contact info on some
dialog and also because that info will be visible on Microsoft's website:

https://docs.microsoft.com/en-us/typography/vendors/

This check verifies whether or not a given font's vendor ID is registered in
that list or if it has some of the default values used by the most common font
editors.

Each new FontBakery release includes a cached copy of that list of vendor IDs.
If you registered recently, you're safe to ignore warnings emitted by this
check, since your ID will soon be included in one of our upcoming releases.

⚠ WARN: Stricter unitsPerEm criteria for Google Fonts.

* [com.google.fonts/check/unitsperem_strict](https://font-bakery.readthedocs.io/en/latest/fontbakery/profiles/googlefonts.html#com.google.fonts/check/unitsperem_strict)

--- Rationale ---

Even though the OpenType spec allows unitsPerEm to be any value between 16 and
16384, the Google Fonts project aims at a narrower set of reasonable values.

The spec suggests usage of powers of two in order to get some performance
improvements on legacy renderers, so those values are acceptable.

But value of 500 or 1000 are also acceptable, with the added benefit that it
makes upm math easier for designers, while the performance hit of not using a
power of two is most likely negligible nowadays.

Another acceptable value is 2000. Since TT outlines are all integers (no
floats), then instances in a VF suffer rounding compromises, and therefore a
1000 UPM is too small because it forces too many such compromises.

Therefore 2000 is a good 'new VF standard', because 2000 is a simple 2x
conversion from existing fonts drawn on a 1000 UPM, and anyone who knows what
10 units can do for 1000 UPM will know what 20 units does too.

Additionally, values above 2048 would result in filesize increases with not
much added benefit.

⚠ WARN: Glyphs are similiar to Google Fonts version?

⚠ WARN: Check if each glyph has the recommended amount of contours.

* [com.google.fonts/check/contour_count](https://font-bakery.readthedocs.io/en/latest/fontbakery/profiles/googlefonts.html#com.google.fonts/check/contour_count)

--- Rationale ---

Visually QAing thousands of glyphs by hand is tiring. Most glyphs can only be
constructured in a handful of ways. This means a glyph's contour count will
only differ slightly amongst different fonts, e.g a 'g' could either be 2 or 3
contours, depending on whether its double story or single story.

However, a quotedbl should have 2 contours, unless the font belongs to a
display family.

This check currently does not cover variable fonts because there's plenty of
alternative ways of constructing glyphs with multiple outlines for each feature
in a VarFont. The expected contour count data for this check is currently
optimized for the typical construction of glyphs in static fonts.

* ⚠ **WARN** This check inspects the glyph outlines and detects the total number of contours in each of them. The expected values are infered from the typical ammounts of contours observed in a large collection of reference font families. The divergences listed below may simply indicate a significantly different design on some of your glyphs. On the other hand, some of these may flag actual bugs in the font such as glyphs mapped to an incorrect codepoint. Please consider reviewing the design and codepoint assignment of these to make sure they are correct. The following glyphs do not have the recommended number of contours: Glyph name: uni0E10 Contours detected: 2 Expected: 1 or 5 Glyph name: uni0E3F Contours detected: 5 Expected: 3 Glyph name: fi Contours detected: 1 Expected: 3 Glyph name: uni0E10 Contours detected: 2 Expected: 1 or 5 Glyph name: uni0E3F Contours detected: 5 Expected: 3 [code: contour-count]

⚠ WARN: Is there kerning info for non-ligated sequences?

--- Rationale ---

Fonts with ligatures should have kerning on the corresponding non-ligated
sequences for text where ligatures aren't used (eg
https://github.com/impallari/Raleway/issues/14).

* ⚠ **WARN** GPOS table lacks kerning info for the following non-ligated sequences: - f + i - i + l [code: lacks-kern-info]

⚠ WARN: Check mark characters are in GDEF mark glyph class)

* [com.google.fonts/check/gdef_spacing_marks](https://font-bakery.readthedocs.io/en/latest/fontbakery/profiles/gdef.html#com.google.fonts/check/gdef_spacing_marks)

--- Rationale ---

Glyphs in the GDEF mark glyph class should be non-spacing.
Spacing glyphs in the GDEF mark glyph class may have incorrect
anchor positioning that was only intended for building composite glyphs
during design.

⚠ WARN: Check mark characters are in GDEF mark glyph class

* [com.google.fonts/check/gdef_mark_chars](https://font-bakery.readthedocs.io/en/latest/fontbakery/profiles/gdef.html#com.google.fonts/check/gdef_mark_chars)

--- Rationale ---

Mark characters should be in the GDEF mark glyph class.

[7] Kanit-MediumItalic.ttf

⚠ WARN: Checking OS/2 achVendID.

* [com.google.fonts/check/vendor_id](https://font-bakery.readthedocs.io/en/latest/fontbakery/profiles/googlefonts.html#com.google.fonts/check/vendor_id)

--- Rationale ---

Microsoft keeps a list of font vendors and their respective contact info. This
list is updated regularly and is indexed by a 4-char "Vendor ID" which is
stored in the achVendID field of the OS/2 table.

Registering your ID is not mandatory, but it is a good practice since some
applications may display the type designer / type foundry contact info on some
dialog and also because that info will be visible on Microsoft's website:

https://docs.microsoft.com/en-us/typography/vendors/

This check verifies whether or not a given font's vendor ID is registered in
that list or if it has some of the default values used by the most common font
editors.

Each new FontBakery release includes a cached copy of that list of vendor IDs.
If you registered recently, you're safe to ignore warnings emitted by this
check, since your ID will soon be included in one of our upcoming releases.

⚠ WARN: Stricter unitsPerEm criteria for Google Fonts.

* [com.google.fonts/check/unitsperem_strict](https://font-bakery.readthedocs.io/en/latest/fontbakery/profiles/googlefonts.html#com.google.fonts/check/unitsperem_strict)

--- Rationale ---

Even though the OpenType spec allows unitsPerEm to be any value between 16 and
16384, the Google Fonts project aims at a narrower set of reasonable values.

The spec suggests usage of powers of two in order to get some performance
improvements on legacy renderers, so those values are acceptable.

But value of 500 or 1000 are also acceptable, with the added benefit that it
makes upm math easier for designers, while the performance hit of not using a
power of two is most likely negligible nowadays.

Another acceptable value is 2000. Since TT outlines are all integers (no
floats), then instances in a VF suffer rounding compromises, and therefore a
1000 UPM is too small because it forces too many such compromises.

Therefore 2000 is a good 'new VF standard', because 2000 is a simple 2x
conversion from existing fonts drawn on a 1000 UPM, and anyone who knows what
10 units can do for 1000 UPM will know what 20 units does too.

Additionally, values above 2048 would result in filesize increases with not
much added benefit.

⚠ WARN: Glyphs are similiar to Google Fonts version?

⚠ WARN: Check if each glyph has the recommended amount of contours.

* [com.google.fonts/check/contour_count](https://font-bakery.readthedocs.io/en/latest/fontbakery/profiles/googlefonts.html#com.google.fonts/check/contour_count)

--- Rationale ---

Visually QAing thousands of glyphs by hand is tiring. Most glyphs can only be
constructured in a handful of ways. This means a glyph's contour count will
only differ slightly amongst different fonts, e.g a 'g' could either be 2 or 3
contours, depending on whether its double story or single story.

However, a quotedbl should have 2 contours, unless the font belongs to a
display family.

This check currently does not cover variable fonts because there's plenty of
alternative ways of constructing glyphs with multiple outlines for each feature
in a VarFont. The expected contour count data for this check is currently
optimized for the typical construction of glyphs in static fonts.

* ⚠ **WARN** This check inspects the glyph outlines and detects the total number of contours in each of them. The expected values are infered from the typical ammounts of contours observed in a large collection of reference font families. The divergences listed below may simply indicate a significantly different design on some of your glyphs. On the other hand, some of these may flag actual bugs in the font such as glyphs mapped to an incorrect codepoint. Please consider reviewing the design and codepoint assignment of these to make sure they are correct. The following glyphs do not have the recommended number of contours: Glyph name: uni0E10 Contours detected: 2 Expected: 1 or 5 Glyph name: uni0E3F Contours detected: 5 Expected: 3 Glyph name: fi Contours detected: 1 Expected: 3 Glyph name: uni0E10 Contours detected: 2 Expected: 1 or 5 Glyph name: uni0E3F Contours detected: 5 Expected: 3 [code: contour-count]

⚠ WARN: Is there kerning info for non-ligated sequences?

--- Rationale ---

Fonts with ligatures should have kerning on the corresponding non-ligated
sequences for text where ligatures aren't used (eg
https://github.com/impallari/Raleway/issues/14).

* ⚠ **WARN** GPOS table lacks kerning info for the following non-ligated sequences: - f + i - i + l [code: lacks-kern-info]

⚠ WARN: Check mark characters are in GDEF mark glyph class)

* [com.google.fonts/check/gdef_spacing_marks](https://font-bakery.readthedocs.io/en/latest/fontbakery/profiles/gdef.html#com.google.fonts/check/gdef_spacing_marks)

--- Rationale ---

Glyphs in the GDEF mark glyph class should be non-spacing.
Spacing glyphs in the GDEF mark glyph class may have incorrect
anchor positioning that was only intended for building composite glyphs
during design.

⚠ WARN: Check mark characters are in GDEF mark glyph class

* [com.google.fonts/check/gdef_mark_chars](https://font-bakery.readthedocs.io/en/latest/fontbakery/profiles/gdef.html#com.google.fonts/check/gdef_mark_chars)

--- Rationale ---

Mark characters should be in the GDEF mark glyph class.

[6] Kanit-Thin.ttf

⚠ WARN: Checking OS/2 achVendID.

* [com.google.fonts/check/vendor_id](https://font-bakery.readthedocs.io/en/latest/fontbakery/profiles/googlefonts.html#com.google.fonts/check/vendor_id)

--- Rationale ---

Microsoft keeps a list of font vendors and their respective contact info. This
list is updated regularly and is indexed by a 4-char "Vendor ID" which is
stored in the achVendID field of the OS/2 table.

Registering your ID is not mandatory, but it is a good practice since some
applications may display the type designer / type foundry contact info on some
dialog and also because that info will be visible on Microsoft's website:

https://docs.microsoft.com/en-us/typography/vendors/

This check verifies whether or not a given font's vendor ID is registered in
that list or if it has some of the default values used by the most common font
editors.

Each new FontBakery release includes a cached copy of that list of vendor IDs.
If you registered recently, you're safe to ignore warnings emitted by this
check, since your ID will soon be included in one of our upcoming releases.

⚠ WARN: Stricter unitsPerEm criteria for Google Fonts.

* [com.google.fonts/check/unitsperem_strict](https://font-bakery.readthedocs.io/en/latest/fontbakery/profiles/googlefonts.html#com.google.fonts/check/unitsperem_strict)

--- Rationale ---

Even though the OpenType spec allows unitsPerEm to be any value between 16 and
16384, the Google Fonts project aims at a narrower set of reasonable values.

The spec suggests usage of powers of two in order to get some performance
improvements on legacy renderers, so those values are acceptable.

But value of 500 or 1000 are also acceptable, with the added benefit that it
makes upm math easier for designers, while the performance hit of not using a
power of two is most likely negligible nowadays.

Another acceptable value is 2000. Since TT outlines are all integers (no
floats), then instances in a VF suffer rounding compromises, and therefore a
1000 UPM is too small because it forces too many such compromises.

Therefore 2000 is a good 'new VF standard', because 2000 is a simple 2x
conversion from existing fonts drawn on a 1000 UPM, and anyone who knows what
10 units can do for 1000 UPM will know what 20 units does too.

Additionally, values above 2048 would result in filesize increases with not
much added benefit.

⚠ WARN: Check if each glyph has the recommended amount of contours.

* [com.google.fonts/check/contour_count](https://font-bakery.readthedocs.io/en/latest/fontbakery/profiles/googlefonts.html#com.google.fonts/check/contour_count)

--- Rationale ---

Visually QAing thousands of glyphs by hand is tiring. Most glyphs can only be
constructured in a handful of ways. This means a glyph's contour count will
only differ slightly amongst different fonts, e.g a 'g' could either be 2 or 3
contours, depending on whether its double story or single story.

However, a quotedbl should have 2 contours, unless the font belongs to a
display family.

This check currently does not cover variable fonts because there's plenty of
alternative ways of constructing glyphs with multiple outlines for each feature
in a VarFont. The expected contour count data for this check is currently
optimized for the typical construction of glyphs in static fonts.

* ⚠ **WARN** This check inspects the glyph outlines and detects the total number of contours in each of them. The expected values are infered from the typical ammounts of contours observed in a large collection of reference font families. The divergences listed below may simply indicate a significantly different design on some of your glyphs. On the other hand, some of these may flag actual bugs in the font such as glyphs mapped to an incorrect codepoint. Please consider reviewing the design and codepoint assignment of these to make sure they are correct. The following glyphs do not have the recommended number of contours: Glyph name: uni0E10 Contours detected: 2 Expected: 1 or 5 Glyph name: uni0E3F Contours detected: 5 Expected: 3 Glyph name: fi Contours detected: 1 Expected: 3 Glyph name: uni0E10 Contours detected: 2 Expected: 1 or 5 Glyph name: uni0E3F Contours detected: 5 Expected: 3 [code: contour-count]

⚠ WARN: Is there kerning info for non-ligated sequences?

--- Rationale ---

Fonts with ligatures should have kerning on the corresponding non-ligated
sequences for text where ligatures aren't used (eg
https://github.com/impallari/Raleway/issues/14).

* ⚠ **WARN** GPOS table lacks kerning info for the following non-ligated sequences: - f + i - i + l [code: lacks-kern-info]

⚠ WARN: Check mark characters are in GDEF mark glyph class)

* [com.google.fonts/check/gdef_spacing_marks](https://font-bakery.readthedocs.io/en/latest/fontbakery/profiles/gdef.html#com.google.fonts/check/gdef_spacing_marks)

--- Rationale ---

Glyphs in the GDEF mark glyph class should be non-spacing.
Spacing glyphs in the GDEF mark glyph class may have incorrect
anchor positioning that was only intended for building composite glyphs
during design.

⚠ WARN: Check mark characters are in GDEF mark glyph class

* [com.google.fonts/check/gdef_mark_chars](https://font-bakery.readthedocs.io/en/latest/fontbakery/profiles/gdef.html#com.google.fonts/check/gdef_mark_chars)

--- Rationale ---

Mark characters should be in the GDEF mark glyph class.

[7] Kanit-ThinItalic.ttf

⚠ WARN: Checking OS/2 achVendID.

* [com.google.fonts/check/vendor_id](https://font-bakery.readthedocs.io/en/latest/fontbakery/profiles/googlefonts.html#com.google.fonts/check/vendor_id)

--- Rationale ---

Microsoft keeps a list of font vendors and their respective contact info. This
list is updated regularly and is indexed by a 4-char "Vendor ID" which is
stored in the achVendID field of the OS/2 table.

Registering your ID is not mandatory, but it is a good practice since some
applications may display the type designer / type foundry contact info on some
dialog and also because that info will be visible on Microsoft's website:

https://docs.microsoft.com/en-us/typography/vendors/

This check verifies whether or not a given font's vendor ID is registered in
that list or if it has some of the default values used by the most common font
editors.

Each new FontBakery release includes a cached copy of that list of vendor IDs.
If you registered recently, you're safe to ignore warnings emitted by this
check, since your ID will soon be included in one of our upcoming releases.

⚠ WARN: Stricter unitsPerEm criteria for Google Fonts.

* [com.google.fonts/check/unitsperem_strict](https://font-bakery.readthedocs.io/en/latest/fontbakery/profiles/googlefonts.html#com.google.fonts/check/unitsperem_strict)

--- Rationale ---

Even though the OpenType spec allows unitsPerEm to be any value between 16 and
16384, the Google Fonts project aims at a narrower set of reasonable values.

The spec suggests usage of powers of two in order to get some performance
improvements on legacy renderers, so those values are acceptable.

But value of 500 or 1000 are also acceptable, with the added benefit that it
makes upm math easier for designers, while the performance hit of not using a
power of two is most likely negligible nowadays.

Another acceptable value is 2000. Since TT outlines are all integers (no
floats), then instances in a VF suffer rounding compromises, and therefore a
1000 UPM is too small because it forces too many such compromises.

Therefore 2000 is a good 'new VF standard', because 2000 is a simple 2x
conversion from existing fonts drawn on a 1000 UPM, and anyone who knows what
10 units can do for 1000 UPM will know what 20 units does too.

Additionally, values above 2048 would result in filesize increases with not
much added benefit.

⚠ WARN: Glyphs are similiar to Google Fonts version?

⚠ WARN: Check if each glyph has the recommended amount of contours.

* [com.google.fonts/check/contour_count](https://font-bakery.readthedocs.io/en/latest/fontbakery/profiles/googlefonts.html#com.google.fonts/check/contour_count)

--- Rationale ---

Visually QAing thousands of glyphs by hand is tiring. Most glyphs can only be
constructured in a handful of ways. This means a glyph's contour count will
only differ slightly amongst different fonts, e.g a 'g' could either be 2 or 3
contours, depending on whether its double story or single story.

However, a quotedbl should have 2 contours, unless the font belongs to a
display family.

This check currently does not cover variable fonts because there's plenty of
alternative ways of constructing glyphs with multiple outlines for each feature
in a VarFont. The expected contour count data for this check is currently
optimized for the typical construction of glyphs in static fonts.

* ⚠ **WARN** This check inspects the glyph outlines and detects the total number of contours in each of them. The expected values are infered from the typical ammounts of contours observed in a large collection of reference font families. The divergences listed below may simply indicate a significantly different design on some of your glyphs. On the other hand, some of these may flag actual bugs in the font such as glyphs mapped to an incorrect codepoint. Please consider reviewing the design and codepoint assignment of these to make sure they are correct. The following glyphs do not have the recommended number of contours: Glyph name: uni0E10 Contours detected: 2 Expected: 1 or 5 Glyph name: uni0E3F Contours detected: 5 Expected: 3 Glyph name: fi Contours detected: 1 Expected: 3 Glyph name: uni0E10 Contours detected: 2 Expected: 1 or 5 Glyph name: uni0E3F Contours detected: 5 Expected: 3 [code: contour-count]

⚠ WARN: Is there kerning info for non-ligated sequences?

--- Rationale ---

Fonts with ligatures should have kerning on the corresponding non-ligated
sequences for text where ligatures aren't used (eg
https://github.com/impallari/Raleway/issues/14).

* ⚠ **WARN** GPOS table lacks kerning info for the following non-ligated sequences: - f + i - i + l [code: lacks-kern-info]

⚠ WARN: Check mark characters are in GDEF mark glyph class)

* [com.google.fonts/check/gdef_spacing_marks](https://font-bakery.readthedocs.io/en/latest/fontbakery/profiles/gdef.html#com.google.fonts/check/gdef_spacing_marks)

--- Rationale ---

Glyphs in the GDEF mark glyph class should be non-spacing.
Spacing glyphs in the GDEF mark glyph class may have incorrect
anchor positioning that was only intended for building composite glyphs
during design.

⚠ WARN: Check mark characters are in GDEF mark glyph class

* [com.google.fonts/check/gdef_mark_chars](https://font-bakery.readthedocs.io/en/latest/fontbakery/profiles/gdef.html#com.google.fonts/check/gdef_mark_chars)

--- Rationale ---

Mark characters should be in the GDEF mark glyph class.

Summary

💔 ERROR	🔥 FAIL	⚠ WARN	💤 SKIP	ℹ INFO	🍞 PASS	🔎 DEBUG
0	1	41	435	42	443	0
0%	0%	4%	45%	4%	46%	0%

Note: The following loglevels were omitted in this report:

SKIP
INFO
PASS
DEBUG

cadsondemak / kanit

Kanit V2 for Google Fonts #15

Fontbakery report

Summary