search

googlefonts / nunito

repo for the Nunito Font family
SIL Open Font License 1.1
129 stars 10 forks source link

v3.504 #20

Closed m4rc1e closed 4 years ago

m4rc1e commented 4 years ago

This pr fixes the lint errors in #16

googlebot commented 4 years ago

All (the pull request submitter and all commit authors) CLAs are signed, but one or more commits were authored or co-authored by someone other than the pull request submitter.

We need to confirm that all authors are ok with their commits being contributed to this project. Please have them confirm that by leaving a comment that contains only @googlebot I consent. in this pull request.

Note to project maintainer: There may be cases where the author cannot leave a comment, or the comment is not properly detected as consent. In those cases, you can manually confirm consent of the commit author(s), and set the cla label to yes (if enabled on your project).

ℹ️ Googlers: Go here for more info.

m4rc1e commented 4 years ago

Fontbakery report

Fontbakery version: 0.7.15

[6] Nunito-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) * ⚠ **WARN** OS/2 VendorID value 'NeWT' is not a known registered id. You should set it to your own 4 character code, and register that code 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 to 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: [uni2206]
⚠ 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: fi Contours detected: 2 Expected: 3 [code: contour-count]
⚠ WARN: Are there caret positions declared for every ligature? * [com.google.fonts/check/ligature_carets](https://font-bakery.readthedocs.io/en/latest/fontbakery/profiles/googlefonts.html#com.google.fonts/check/ligature_carets) 
--- Rationale ---

All ligatures in a font must have corresponding caret (text cursor) positions
defined in the GDEF table, otherwhise, users may experience issues with caret
rendering.
* ⚠ **WARN** This font lacks caret position values for ligature glyphs on its GDEF table. [code: lacks-caret-pos]
⚠ 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]

[6] Nunito-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) * ⚠ **WARN** OS/2 VendorID value 'NeWT' is not a known registered id. You should set it to your own 4 character code, and register that code 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 to 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: [uni2206]
⚠ 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: fi Contours detected: 2 Expected: 3 [code: contour-count]
⚠ WARN: Are there caret positions declared for every ligature? * [com.google.fonts/check/ligature_carets](https://font-bakery.readthedocs.io/en/latest/fontbakery/profiles/googlefonts.html#com.google.fonts/check/ligature_carets) 
--- Rationale ---

All ligatures in a font must have corresponding caret (text cursor) positions
defined in the GDEF table, otherwhise, users may experience issues with caret
rendering.
* ⚠ **WARN** This font lacks caret position values for ligature glyphs on its GDEF table. [code: lacks-caret-pos]
⚠ 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]

[6] Nunito-Bold.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) * ⚠ **WARN** OS/2 VendorID value 'NeWT' is not a known registered id. You should set it to your own 4 character code, and register that code 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 to 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: [uni2206]
⚠ 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: fi Contours detected: 2 Expected: 3 [code: contour-count]
⚠ WARN: Are there caret positions declared for every ligature? * [com.google.fonts/check/ligature_carets](https://font-bakery.readthedocs.io/en/latest/fontbakery/profiles/googlefonts.html#com.google.fonts/check/ligature_carets) 
--- Rationale ---

All ligatures in a font must have corresponding caret (text cursor) positions
defined in the GDEF table, otherwhise, users may experience issues with caret
rendering.
* ⚠ **WARN** This font lacks caret position values for ligature glyphs on its GDEF table. [code: lacks-caret-pos]
⚠ 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]

[6] Nunito-BoldItalic.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) * ⚠ **WARN** OS/2 VendorID value 'NeWT' is not a known registered id. You should set it to your own 4 character code, and register that code 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 to 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: [uni2206]
⚠ 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: fi Contours detected: 2 Expected: 3 [code: contour-count]
⚠ WARN: Are there caret positions declared for every ligature? * [com.google.fonts/check/ligature_carets](https://font-bakery.readthedocs.io/en/latest/fontbakery/profiles/googlefonts.html#com.google.fonts/check/ligature_carets) 
--- Rationale ---

All ligatures in a font must have corresponding caret (text cursor) positions
defined in the GDEF table, otherwhise, users may experience issues with caret
rendering.
* ⚠ **WARN** This font lacks caret position values for ligature glyphs on its GDEF table. [code: lacks-caret-pos]
⚠ 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]

[6] Nunito-ExtraBold.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) * ⚠ **WARN** OS/2 VendorID value 'NeWT' is not a known registered id. You should set it to your own 4 character code, and register that code 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 to 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: [uni2206]
⚠ 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: fi Contours detected: 2 Expected: 3 [code: contour-count]
⚠ WARN: Are there caret positions declared for every ligature? * [com.google.fonts/check/ligature_carets](https://font-bakery.readthedocs.io/en/latest/fontbakery/profiles/googlefonts.html#com.google.fonts/check/ligature_carets) 
--- Rationale ---

All ligatures in a font must have corresponding caret (text cursor) positions
defined in the GDEF table, otherwhise, users may experience issues with caret
rendering.
* ⚠ **WARN** This font lacks caret position values for ligature glyphs on its GDEF table. [code: lacks-caret-pos]
⚠ 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]

[6] Nunito-ExtraBoldItalic.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) * ⚠ **WARN** OS/2 VendorID value 'NeWT' is not a known registered id. You should set it to your own 4 character code, and register that code 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 to 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: [uni2206]
⚠ 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: fi Contours detected: 2 Expected: 3 [code: contour-count]
⚠ WARN: Are there caret positions declared for every ligature? * [com.google.fonts/check/ligature_carets](https://font-bakery.readthedocs.io/en/latest/fontbakery/profiles/googlefonts.html#com.google.fonts/check/ligature_carets) 
--- Rationale ---

All ligatures in a font must have corresponding caret (text cursor) positions
defined in the GDEF table, otherwhise, users may experience issues with caret
rendering.
* ⚠ **WARN** This font lacks caret position values for ligature glyphs on its GDEF table. [code: lacks-caret-pos]
⚠ 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]

[6] Nunito-ExtraLight.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) * ⚠ **WARN** OS/2 VendorID value 'NeWT' is not a known registered id. You should set it to your own 4 character code, and register that code 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 to 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: [uni2206]
⚠ 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: fi Contours detected: 2 Expected: 3 [code: contour-count]
⚠ WARN: Are there caret positions declared for every ligature? * [com.google.fonts/check/ligature_carets](https://font-bakery.readthedocs.io/en/latest/fontbakery/profiles/googlefonts.html#com.google.fonts/check/ligature_carets) 
--- Rationale ---

All ligatures in a font must have corresponding caret (text cursor) positions
defined in the GDEF table, otherwhise, users may experience issues with caret
rendering.
* ⚠ **WARN** This font lacks caret position values for ligature glyphs on its GDEF table. [code: lacks-caret-pos]
⚠ 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]

[6] Nunito-ExtraLightItalic.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) * ⚠ **WARN** OS/2 VendorID value 'NeWT' is not a known registered id. You should set it to your own 4 character code, and register that code 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 to 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: [uni2206]
⚠ 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: uni0495 Contours detected: 2 Expected: 1 Glyph name: uni0495 Contours detected: 2 Expected: 1 Glyph name: fi Contours detected: 2 Expected: 3 [code: contour-count]
⚠ WARN: Are there caret positions declared for every ligature? * [com.google.fonts/check/ligature_carets](https://font-bakery.readthedocs.io/en/latest/fontbakery/profiles/googlefonts.html#com.google.fonts/check/ligature_carets) 
--- Rationale ---

All ligatures in a font must have corresponding caret (text cursor) positions
defined in the GDEF table, otherwhise, users may experience issues with caret
rendering.
* ⚠ **WARN** This font lacks caret position values for ligature glyphs on its GDEF table. [code: lacks-caret-pos]
⚠ 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]

[6] Nunito-Italic.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) * ⚠ **WARN** OS/2 VendorID value 'NeWT' is not a known registered id. You should set it to your own 4 character code, and register that code 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 to 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: [uni2206]
⚠ 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: fi Contours detected: 2 Expected: 3 [code: contour-count]
⚠ WARN: Are there caret positions declared for every ligature? * [com.google.fonts/check/ligature_carets](https://font-bakery.readthedocs.io/en/latest/fontbakery/profiles/googlefonts.html#com.google.fonts/check/ligature_carets) 
--- Rationale ---

All ligatures in a font must have corresponding caret (text cursor) positions
defined in the GDEF table, otherwhise, users may experience issues with caret
rendering.
* ⚠ **WARN** This font lacks caret position values for ligature glyphs on its GDEF table. [code: lacks-caret-pos]
⚠ 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]

[6] Nunito-Light.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) * ⚠ **WARN** OS/2 VendorID value 'NeWT' is not a known registered id. You should set it to your own 4 character code, and register that code 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 to 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: [uni2206]
⚠ 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: fi Contours detected: 2 Expected: 3 [code: contour-count]
⚠ WARN: Are there caret positions declared for every ligature? * [com.google.fonts/check/ligature_carets](https://font-bakery.readthedocs.io/en/latest/fontbakery/profiles/googlefonts.html#com.google.fonts/check/ligature_carets) 
--- Rationale ---

All ligatures in a font must have corresponding caret (text cursor) positions
defined in the GDEF table, otherwhise, users may experience issues with caret
rendering.
* ⚠ **WARN** This font lacks caret position values for ligature glyphs on its GDEF table. [code: lacks-caret-pos]
⚠ 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]

[6] Nunito-LightItalic.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) * ⚠ **WARN** OS/2 VendorID value 'NeWT' is not a known registered id. You should set it to your own 4 character code, and register that code 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 to 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: [uni2206]
⚠ 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: fi Contours detected: 2 Expected: 3 [code: contour-count]
⚠ WARN: Are there caret positions declared for every ligature? * [com.google.fonts/check/ligature_carets](https://font-bakery.readthedocs.io/en/latest/fontbakery/profiles/googlefonts.html#com.google.fonts/check/ligature_carets) 
--- Rationale ---

All ligatures in a font must have corresponding caret (text cursor) positions
defined in the GDEF table, otherwhise, users may experience issues with caret
rendering.
* ⚠ **WARN** This font lacks caret position values for ligature glyphs on its GDEF table. [code: lacks-caret-pos]
⚠ 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]

[6] Nunito-Regular.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) * ⚠ **WARN** OS/2 VendorID value 'NeWT' is not a known registered id. You should set it to your own 4 character code, and register that code 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 to 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: [uni2206]
⚠ 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: fi Contours detected: 2 Expected: 3 [code: contour-count]
⚠ WARN: Are there caret positions declared for every ligature? * [com.google.fonts/check/ligature_carets](https://font-bakery.readthedocs.io/en/latest/fontbakery/profiles/googlefonts.html#com.google.fonts/check/ligature_carets) 
--- Rationale ---

All ligatures in a font must have corresponding caret (text cursor) positions
defined in the GDEF table, otherwhise, users may experience issues with caret
rendering.
* ⚠ **WARN** This font lacks caret position values for ligature glyphs on its GDEF table. [code: lacks-caret-pos]
⚠ 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]

[6] Nunito-SemiBold.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) * ⚠ **WARN** OS/2 VendorID value 'NeWT' is not a known registered id. You should set it to your own 4 character code, and register that code 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 to 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: [uni2206]
⚠ 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: fi Contours detected: 2 Expected: 3 [code: contour-count]
⚠ WARN: Are there caret positions declared for every ligature? * [com.google.fonts/check/ligature_carets](https://font-bakery.readthedocs.io/en/latest/fontbakery/profiles/googlefonts.html#com.google.fonts/check/ligature_carets) 
--- Rationale ---

All ligatures in a font must have corresponding caret (text cursor) positions
defined in the GDEF table, otherwhise, users may experience issues with caret
rendering.
* ⚠ **WARN** This font lacks caret position values for ligature glyphs on its GDEF table. [code: lacks-caret-pos]
⚠ 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]

[6] Nunito-SemiBoldItalic.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) * ⚠ **WARN** OS/2 VendorID value 'NeWT' is not a known registered id. You should set it to your own 4 character code, and register that code 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 to 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: [uni2206, numbersign, divide]
⚠ 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: fi Contours detected: 2 Expected: 3 [code: contour-count]
⚠ WARN: Are there caret positions declared for every ligature? * [com.google.fonts/check/ligature_carets](https://font-bakery.readthedocs.io/en/latest/fontbakery/profiles/googlefonts.html#com.google.fonts/check/ligature_carets) 
--- Rationale ---

All ligatures in a font must have corresponding caret (text cursor) positions
defined in the GDEF table, otherwhise, users may experience issues with caret
rendering.
* ⚠ **WARN** This font lacks caret position values for ligature glyphs on its GDEF table. [code: lacks-caret-pos]
⚠ 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]

Summary

💔 ERROR 🔥 FAIL ⚠ WARN 💤 SKIP ℹ INFO 🍞 PASS 🔎 DEBUG
0 0 84 744 99 950 0
0% 0% 4% 40% 5% 51% 0%

Note: The following loglevels were omitted in this report:

Diff images: nunito_qa2.zip

m4rc1e commented 4 years ago

I'm happy with this pr. I'll try and get it merged tomorrow

m4rc1e commented 4 years ago

@jbrooksuk Update is now live on Google Fonts. Thank you for your patience.

jbrooksuk commented 4 years ago

Amazing! Thanks @m4rc1e.

alpiel91 commented 4 years ago

@alexeiva your consent is missing as per the googlebot:

We need to confirm that all authors are ok with their commits being contributed to this project. Please have them confirm that by leaving a comment that contains only @googlebot I consent. in this pull request.

alexeiva commented 4 years ago

@googlebot I consent