Open cheuk879 opened 5 years ago
samples please
This makes sense. Only two langs use the warted cons: [hmd] and [sfm]. [hmd] uses both u16F21 and u16F22 (and not u16F20), which makes the warted/non-warted similar:
However for [sfm] they use u16F20 (not u16F21) so there is currently a mismatch:
We will need a new glyph (u16F22.sfm) and a new OT lookup to make the substitution. This will need to wait until after v1.0.
Would have been nice to make it for v1.0, but we'll relate to the users.
Well this has been this way in the font for many months and was reported a month after the agreed-upon deadline for all 1.0 changes.
Yes, I know, so I've already notified them accordingly. As I mentioned some time ago, we're really in a chicken-or-egg situation: users need a font to see what's right & what's wrong as a means to tell us what they want, but we need to know what they want before we can give them a font. This is esp. tricky when we only have a handwritten alphabet chart to start with. Most of the time we have to guess what they may want & ask hypothetical questions. And it happened a week ago they responded to this guess, saying, "yes, that's what we want!" Anyhow, we'll aim for v1.1 for this.
Thanks - This is why I've been pressing to get 1.0 out, even with known bugs.
For [sfm], the vertical stroke of 16F22 should be more to the right like 16F20.