search

notofonts / noto-cjk

Noto CJK fonts
http://www.google.com/get/noto/help/cjk
3.01k stars 217 forks source link

DPRK Compatibility CJK block is not supported #33

Closed MahaHas closed 9 years ago

MahaHas commented 9 years ago

Those glyphs are not implemented on many platform including OSX10.10.3 變 using HTML print the char "xFAC0" & "xFAD0" ==> 變 & Expected: to be displayed as defined in Unicode Chart

Actual: it displayed as squares See attachment android-jpglyphs 1

From Roozbeh: Confirming the problem, but these are two separate bugs:

  1. U+FAC0 變 is shown properly in TextView (you can confirm that with Mihai's Unicode CharMap tool), since it is canonically equivalent to U+8B8A, which we do support in TextView/Minikin as fallback. It's only shown as a tofu in WebView and Chrome.
  2. U+FAD0 𢡄 is not supported, because both the character U+FAD0 and its canonical decomposition U+22844 are missing from the Noto CJK fonts.

From Jungshik Shin: This is partly an old issue. Ken Lunde would not map U+FAC0 to its canonical equivalent (one of glphs for U+8B8A) saying that he does not know exactly what glyph to use for DPRK variant (U+FAC0) and supporting DPRK is not in the scope of Noto CJK. Both Roozbeh and I disagreed, but failed to persuade him.

If we do care about DPRK compatibility ideographs (the chance of them being used on the web/Android is virtually zero), we can map all of them with canonical equivalents to existing characters in Noto CJK.

Those without the canonical equivalents (like U+FAD0) covered in Noto CJK are out of luck. They do not have canonical equivalents because they're in Plane 2 and Noto CJK is scoped to cover a small subset of Plane 2 essential for regular Japanese/Chinese/Korean usage.

jungshik commented 9 years ago

This is a very low priority issue because the chance of coming across these characters is virtually zero unless you're making a code chart.

kenlunde commented 9 years ago

Support for CJK Compatibility Ideographs that correspond to DPRK standards were intentionally excluded. Support for DPRK standards, as a whole, was also excluded. Another issue with those particular CJK Compatibility Ideographs is that many of the glyphs are questionable, and there are various difficulties and barriers for resolving them.