search

notofonts / coptic

Noto Coptic
SIL Open Font License 1.1
2 stars 0 forks source link

cap issue report on Coptic #4

Closed GoogleCodeExporter closed 7 years ago

GoogleCodeExporter commented 9 years ago 
Issues on character character coverage, design and layout are reported in the 
attached file.

Original issue reported on code.google.com by xian...@google.com on 27 Mar 2015 at 11:06

Attachments:

GoogleCodeExporter commented 9 years ago

Original comment by xian...@google.com on 1 Apr 2015 at 6:15

behdad commented 9 years ago

cc @xiangyexiao

kmansourMT commented 9 years ago

The Coptic review PDF is a large collection of wishes, along with some error reports. Some of the wishes include additional characters that were not in the original specs, and therefore cannot be considered bugs. We will very soon be supplying a new version of the font that fixes all the technical errors. We have also heeded some of the design "wishes" and have made changes to improve the product. Once the Google team has received the new version, we can address any remaining issues.

kmansourMT commented 9 years ago

Following is my initial reply (May 2015) to the review and the Lint report: 2015.4.27 km

Lint report: Missing characters u0374 & u375. These characters can be readily copied from Noto Sans LGC module.

Issue 312: report by John Hudson

Claim 1: Glyph set: why are some listed IPA characters included? Reply: remove shown characters because they aren’t needed.

Claim 2: font does not contain the historic Coptic epact numbers, which have now been included in Unicode (block 102E0) Reply: this range of characters was not required when specification was agreed upon.

Claim 3: Design: various recommendations for improving design of a handful of characters Reply: Some of the suggestion make sense and would constitute an improvement in terms of style and legibility. I would like to review these with Carl C. or another designer to finalize.

Claim 4: Layout behavior Kerning: font contains no kerning, but needs it for some combinations. (in particular for all-cap settings) Reply: I’m not sure this was a requirement at the time or if it’s a nice afterthought. Let’s discuss to determine how much work would be involved in cap-to-cap kerning pairs.

Claim 5: Layout behavior Overline marks: the overline features (with various types of marks) appear to fail when the base characters are of a different height. Reply: The coding of this feature was done in Volt; I believe it can be fixed with a modest amount of effort by using a new, clever technique.

Claim 6: Layout behavior Continuos macron: claim that it does not render correctly under any environment, including Windows 7. Reply: We need to verify the functionality of this feature under Volt, as well as under Windows 8.

marekjez86 commented 7 years ago

per MT "Issues were addressed in v1.03 TTF 2015 delivery"