Closed Logo121 closed 1 year ago
Thanks! I'm grateful for all the documentation you've supplied, but I confess I'm also quite confused as to what to actually do...
Let me ask two questions:
1 Which existing glyphs do you me to change?
2 Which new glyphs do you want me to add?
I've been using the Unicode code charts as my main reference:
Are these suitable for adaptation?
Only U+A64B needs to be changed.
I've mentioned U+1C88 (unblended uk) just in case you want to move the existing glyph for U+A64B to that codepoint.
I'm not an expert at this either (I'm just referring to Unicode documents as well), so it's probably safe enough to just follow the Unicode-provided glyphs.
That's what most fonts I found (and showed in that issue) do anyway.
This issue was addressed with the latest release
Yep, looks good to me
As per https://github.com/be5invis/Iosevka/issues/1517#issuecomment-1379422104.
A more thorough explanation can be seen here:
By this comment, the original lowercase Uk
ꙋ
should be blended, as opposed to the unblendedᲈ
(U+1C88). These two forms coexisted in some writings, so the encoding of these two forms separately probably means that they are intended to be distinct.(Not that I think they will ever be used in a way that the identification causes a problem but still)
For the current lowercase Uk, I'm not sure if they can be used directly for U+1C88 either. The sources and all fonts I found renders it as a
ѵ
overо
, without the tail. If that glyph is to be supported along with this fix, it probably has to be remade.