Ubuntu Bionic amd64 is what I am running, but the issue is the names of the glyphs in the TTF, so I don't think which OS will have an affect.
Issue
The source for this font has friendly names such as k_tt_ra-beng. When the TTF is built, this glyph gets the name uni099509CD099709CD09B0, but it should be uni099509CD099F09CD09B0.
Steps to reproduce
View TTF in some font viewer program.
Observed results
uni099509CD099709CD09B0 for k_tt_ra-beng
Expected results
uni099509CD099F09CD09B0 for k_tt_ra-beng
Additional information
The full list of issues I found is
The GlyphsApp source file for this font was converted to UFO, so a derivative found could be produced. The above diff is from the diff between the original and fixed files of lib.plist in the UFO.
Note that some of the incorrect AGLFN names reference U+09A9, which is not an assigned character in Unicode.
Font
NotoSerifBengali-Regular.ttf.
Where the font came from, and when
Site: https://github.com/googlefonts/noto-fonts/blob/master/phaseIII_only/hinted/ttf/NotoSerifBengali/NotoSerifBengali-Regular.ttf Date: 2019-12-09
Font Version
2.000
OS name and version
Ubuntu Bionic amd64 is what I am running, but the issue is the names of the glyphs in the TTF, so I don't think which OS will have an affect.
Issue
The source for this font has friendly names such as
k_tt_ra-beng
. When the TTF is built, this glyph gets the nameuni099509CD099709CD09B0
, but it should beuni099509CD099F09CD09B0
.uni099509CD099709CD09B0
for k_tt_ra-benguni099509CD099F09CD09B0
for k_tt_ra-bengThe GlyphsApp source file for this font was converted to UFO, so a derivative found could be produced. The above diff is from the diff between the original and fixed files of
lib.plist
in the UFO.Note that some of the incorrect AGLFN names reference U+09A9, which is not an assigned character in Unicode.