Siddham character U+0115A1 (na) looks different

[Sagir8453]

Defect Report

The Siddham character na in the noto font looks different from that in other fonts, unicode block pdf and manuscripts. Is it unique to the Noto Sans Siddham font or taken from somewhere?

Font

NotoSansSiddham-regular.otf

Where the font came from, and when

Site: https://github.com/googlei18n/noto-fonts/blob/c4e94171d04167796d0dd5e7a93e94b54ca29425/phaseIII_only/unhinted/otf/NotoSansSiddham/NotoSansSiddham-Regular.otf Date: 2019-07-22 (preferred format)

Font Version

Current version of 2019-07-22

Issue

Character data

U+0115A1

Screenshot

NotoSansSiddham MuktamSiddham ApDevSiddham From its unicode pdf

[Sagir8453]

Apparently it's used in a variation which seems rare. It seems more people use the variation used in other fonts, I guess it'd be better to use the more common variation and moving the current to an alternative form cell.

[nizarsq]

@marekjez86 for design opinion https://unicode.org/charts/PDF/U11580.pdf

[Tosche]

This is a valid form as you can see (taken from 梵字大鑑). Noto Siddham's style is based on flat-nib style which is older and considered more authentic. Japanese monks developed brush styles over the centuries which became less-defined, abbreviated, and sometimes far removed from the earlier forms. Some letters may therefore look different in modern expectation, but they are all older forms and more appropriate in the chosen style.