Consolidation of Glyph Redesign Suggestions
kenlunde opened this issue · 42 comments
The following table shows the glyph redesign suggestions that are being considered for the Version 2.000 update, and please note that the final decision will be made by the typeface designer:
| Character | Glyph Name | Description |
|---|---|---|
| U+02C7 ˇ | uni02C7 | Make slightly smaller and position higher (compare with Source Han Serif); Issue #167 |
| U+02CA ˊ | uni02CA | Make slightly smaller and position higher (compare with Source Han Serif); Issue #167 |
| U+02CB ˋ | uni02CB | Make slightly smaller and position higher (compare with Source Han Serif); Issue #167 |
| U+31C3 ㇃ | uni31C3 | Adjust the shape so that it doesn't look like U+31DF ㇟ |
| U+329C ㊜ | uni329C-TW | Consider redesigning the Radical 162 component; Issue #50 |
| U+3378 ㍸ | uni3378 | Adjust the lowercase component that is associated with the superscript; Noto CJK Issue 25 |
| U+3379 ㍹ | uni3379 | Adjust the lowercase component that is associated with the superscript; Noto CJK Issue 25 |
| U+339F ㎟ | uni339F | Adjust the lowercase component that is associated with the superscript; Noto CJK Issue 25 |
| U+33A0 ㎠ | uni33A0 | Adjust the lowercase component that is associated with the superscript; Noto CJK Issue 25 |
| U+33A1 ㎡ | uni33A1 | Adjust the lowercase component that is associated with the superscript; Noto CJK Issue 25 |
| U+33A2 ㎢ | uni33A2 | Adjust the lowercase component that is associated with the superscript; Noto CJK Issue 25 |
| U+33A3 ㎣ | uni33A3 | Adjust the lowercase component that is associated with the superscript; Noto CJK Issue 25 |
| U+33A4 ㎤ | uni33A4 | Adjust the lowercase component that is associated with the superscript; Noto CJK Issue 25 |
| U+33A5 ㎥ | uni33A5 | Adjust the lowercase component that is associated with the superscript; Noto CJK Issue 25 |
| U+33A6 ㎦ | uni33A6 | Adjust the lowercase component that is associated with the superscript; Noto CJK Issue 25 |
| U+33A8 ㎨ | uni33A8 | Adjust the lowercase component that is associated with the superscript; Noto CJK Issue 25 |
| U+33AF ㎯ | uni33AF | Adjust the lowercase component that is associated with the superscript; Noto CJK Issue 25 |
| U+507D 偽 | uni507D-JP (AJ16 CID+1616) | Consider adjusting the glyph so that it is more usable across languages; Source Han Serif Issue 36 |
| U+50C6 僆 | uni50C6-TW | Consider redesigning the Radical 162 component; Issue #50 |
| U+55F9 嗹 | uni55F9-TW | Consider redesigning the Radical 162 component; Issue #50 |
| U+5660 噠 | uni5660-TW | Consider redesigning the Radical 162 component; Issue #50 |
| U+5683 嚃 | uni5683-TW | Consider redesigning the Radical 162 component; Issue #50 |
| U+58DD 壝 | uni58DD-TW | Consider redesigning the Radical 162 component; Issue #50 |
| U+5C0E 導 | uni5C0E-TW | Consider redesigning the Radical 162 component; Issue #50 |
| U+5DE1 巡 | uni5DE1-TW | Consider redesigning the Radical 162 component; Issue #50 |
| U+6165 慥 | uni6165-TW | Consider redesigning the Radical 162 component; Issue #50 |
| U+6425 搥 | uni6425-TW | Consider redesigning the Radical 162 component; Issue #50 |
| U+6453 摓 | uni6453-TW | Consider redesigning the Radical 162 component; Issue #50 |
| U+6459 摙 | uni6459-TW | Consider redesigning the Radical 162 component; Issue #50 |
| U+64BB 撻 | uni64BB-TW | Consider redesigning the Radical 162 component; Issue #50 |
| U+64BE 撾 | uni64BE-TW | Consider redesigning the Radical 162 component; Issue #50 |
| U+64FF 擿 | uni64FF-TW | Consider redesigning the Radical 162 component; Issue #50 |
| U+65DE 旞 | uni65DE-TW | Consider redesigning the Radical 162 component; Issue #50 |
| U+66B9 暹 | uni66B9-TW | Consider redesigning the Radical 162 component; Issue #50 |
| U+69CC 槌 | uni69CC-TW | Consider redesigning the Radical 162 component; Issue #50 |
| U+69E4 槤 | uni69E4-TW | Consider redesigning the Radical 162 component; Issue #50 |
| U+6A96 檖 | uni6A96-TW | Consider redesigning the Radical 162 component; Issue #50 |
| U+6A9B 檛 | uni6A9B-TW | Consider redesigning the Radical 162 component; Issue #50 |
| U+6AA4 檤 | uni6AA4-TW | Consider redesigning the Radical 162 component; Issue #50 |
| U+6ACF 櫏 | uni6ACF-TW | Consider redesigning the Radical 162 component; Issue #50 |
| U+6E88 溈 | uni6E88-CN | Consider adjusting the glyph so that it is more usable across languages; Source Han Serif Issue 36 |
| U+6F23 漣 | uni6F23-TW | Consider redesigning the Radical 162 component; Issue #50 |
| U+6FC4 濄 | uni6FC4-TW | Consider redesigning the Radical 162 component; Issue #50 |
| U+7021 瀡 | uni7021-TW | Consider redesigning the Radical 162 component; Issue #50 |
| U+7022 瀢 | uni7022-TW | Consider redesigning the Radical 162 component; Issue #50 |
| U+70BA 為 | uni70BA-JP (AJ16 CID+1181) | Consider adjusting the glyph so that it is more usable across languages; Source Han Serif Issue 36 |
| U+71A5 熥 | uni71A5-TW | Consider redesigning the Radical 162 component; Issue #50 |
| U+71E7 燧 | uni71E7-TW | Consider redesigning the Radical 162 component; Issue #50 |
| U+7489 璉 | uni7489-TW | Consider redesigning the Radical 162 component; Issue #50 |
| U+74A1 璡 | uni74A1-TW | Consider redesigning the Radical 162 component; Issue #50 |
| U+74AD 璭 | uni74AD-TW | Consider redesigning the Radical 162 component; Issue #50 |
| U+74B2 璲 | uni74B2-TW | Consider redesigning the Radical 162 component; Issue #50 |
| U+74CB 瓋 | uni74CB-TW | Consider redesigning the Radical 162 component; Issue #50 |
| U+7787 瞇 | uni7787-TW | Consider redesigning the Radical 162 component; Issue #50 |
| U+79AD 禭 | uni79AD-TW | Consider redesigning the Radical 162 component; Issue #50 |
| U+7A5F 穟 | uni7A5F-TW | Consider redesigning the Radical 162 component; Issue #50 |
| U+7BF4 篴 | uni7BF4-TW | Consider redesigning the Radical 162 component; Issue #50 |
| U+7BF7 篷 | uni7BF7-TW | Consider redesigning the Radical 162 component; Issue #50 |
| U+7C09 簉 | uni7C09-TW | Consider redesigning the Radical 162 component; Issue #50 |
| U+7C3B 簻 | uni7C3B-TW | Consider redesigning the Radical 162 component; Issue #50 |
| U+7C67 籧 | uni7C67-TW | Consider redesigning the Radical 162 component; Issue #50 |
| U+7C69 籩 | uni7C69-TW | Consider redesigning the Radical 162 component; Issue #50 |
| U+7CD9 糙 | uni7CD9-TW | Consider redesigning the Radical 162 component; Issue #50 |
| U+7E0B 縋 | uni7E0B-TW | Consider redesigning the Radical 162 component; Issue #50 |
| U+7E0C 縌 | uni7E0C-TW | Consider redesigning the Radical 162 component; Issue #50 |
| U+7E2B 縫 | uni7E2B-TW | Consider redesigning the Radical 162 component; Issue #50 |
| U+7E3A 縺 | uni7E3A-TW | Consider redesigning the Radical 162 component; Issue #50 |
| U+7E68 繨 | uni7E68-TW | Consider redesigning the Radical 162 component; Issue #50 |
| U+7E78 繸 | uni7E78-TW | Consider redesigning the Radical 162 component; Issue #50 |
| U+7E7E 繾 | uni7E7E-TW | Consider redesigning the Radical 162 component; Issue #50 |
| U+7FF4 翴 | uni7FF4-TW | Consider redesigning the Radical 162 component; Issue #50 |
| U+817F 腿 | uni817F-TW | Consider redesigning the Radical 162 component; Issue #50 |
| U+8187 膇 | uni8187-TW | Consider redesigning the Radical 162 component; Issue #50 |
| U+81BC 膼 | uni81BC-TW | Consider redesigning the Radical 162 component; Issue #50 |
| U+84EA 蓪 | uni84EA-TW | Consider redesigning the Radical 162 component; Issue #50 |
| U+84EB 蓫 | uni84EB-TW | Consider redesigning the Radical 162 component; Issue #50 |
| U+84EC 蓬 | uni84EC-TW | Consider redesigning the Radical 162 component; Issue #50 |
| U+84EE 蓮 | uni84EE-TW | Consider redesigning the Radical 162 component; Issue #50 |
| U+8578 蕸 | uni8578-TW | Consider redesigning the Radical 162 component; Issue #50 |
| U+8596 薖 | uni8596-TW | Consider redesigning the Radical 162 component; Issue #50 |
| U+8598 薘 | uni8598-TW | Consider redesigning the Radical 162 component; Issue #50 |
| U+85B3 薳 | uni85B3-TW | Consider redesigning the Radical 162 component; Issue #50 |
| U+85D7 藗 | uni85D7-TW | Consider redesigning the Radical 162 component; Issue #50 |
| U+85E1 藡 | uni85E1-TW | Consider redesigning the Radical 162 component; Issue #50 |
| U+8627 蘧 | uni8627-TW | Consider redesigning the Radical 162 component; Issue #50 |
| U+8781 螁 | uni8781-TW | Consider redesigning the Radical 162 component; Issue #50 |
| U+892A 褪 | uni892A-TW | Consider redesigning the Radical 162 component; Issue #50 |
| U+8933 褳 | uni8933-TW | Consider redesigning the Radical 162 component; Issue #50 |
| U+895A 襚 | uni895A-TW | Consider redesigning the Radical 162 component; Issue #50 |
| U+8B0E 謎 | uni8B0E-TW | Consider redesigning the Radical 162 component; Issue #50 |
| U+8B30 謰 | uni8B30-TW | Consider redesigning the Radical 162 component; Issue #50 |
| U+8B74 譴 | uni8B74-TW | Consider redesigning the Radical 162 component; Issue #50 |
| U+8E65 蹥 | uni8E65-TW | Consider redesigning the Radical 162 component; Issue #50 |
| U+8E82 躂 | uni8E82-TW | Consider redesigning the Radical 162 component; Issue #50 |
| U+8E9A 躚 | uni8E9A-TW | Consider redesigning the Radical 162 component; Issue #50 |
| U+8F4B 轋 | uni8F4B-TW | Consider redesigning the Radical 162 component; Issue #50 |
| U+8FBF 辿 | uni8FBF-TW | Consider redesigning the Radical 162 component; Issue #50 |
| U+8FC2 迂 | uni8FC2-TW | Consider redesigning the Radical 162 component; Issue #50 |
| U+8FC4 迄 | uni8FC4-TW | Consider redesigning the Radical 162 component; Issue #50 |
| U+8FC5 迅 | uni8FC5-TW | Consider redesigning the Radical 162 component; Issue #50 |
| U+8FC6 迆 | uni8FC6-TW | Consider redesigning the Radical 162 component; Issue #50 |
| U+8FC9 迉 | uni8FC9-TW | Consider redesigning the Radical 162 component; Issue #50 |
| U+8FCB 迋 | uni8FCB-TW | Consider redesigning the Radical 162 component; Issue #50 |
| U+8FCD 迍 | uni8FCD-TW | Consider redesigning the Radical 162 component; Issue #50 |
| U+8FCE 迎 | uni8FCE-TW | Consider redesigning the Radical 162 component; Issue #50 |
| U+8FD1 近 | uni8FD1-TW | Consider redesigning the Radical 162 component; Issue #50 |
| U+8FD2 迒 | uni8FD2-TW | Consider redesigning the Radical 162 component; Issue #50 |
| U+8FD3 迓 | uni8FD3-TW | Consider redesigning the Radical 162 component; Issue #50 |
| U+8FD4 返 | uni8FD4-TW | Consider redesigning the Radical 162 component; Issue #50 |
| U+8FD5 迕 | uni8FD5-TW | Consider redesigning the Radical 162 component; Issue #50 |
| U+8FD6 迖 | uni8FD6-TW | Consider redesigning the Radical 162 component; Issue #50 |
| U+8FD7 迗 | uni8FD7-TW | Consider redesigning the Radical 162 component; Issue #50 |
| U+8FE0 迠 | uni8FE0-TW | Consider redesigning the Radical 162 component; Issue #50 |
| U+8FE1 迡 | uni8FE1-TW | Consider redesigning the Radical 162 component; Issue #50 |
| U+8FE2 迢 | uni8FE2-TW | Consider redesigning the Radical 162 component; Issue #50 |
| U+8FE3 迣 | uni8FE3-TW | Consider redesigning the Radical 162 component; Issue #50 |
| U+8FE4 迤 | uni8FE4-TW | Consider redesigning the Radical 162 component; Issue #50 |
| U+8FE5 迥 | uni8FE5-TW | Consider redesigning the Radical 162 component; Issue #50 |
| U+8FE6 迦 | uni8FE6-TW | Consider redesigning the Radical 162 component; Issue #50 |
| U+8FE8 迨 | uni8FE8-TW | Consider redesigning the Radical 162 component; Issue #50 |
| U+8FEA 迪 | uni8FEA-TW | Consider redesigning the Radical 162 component; Issue #50 |
| U+8FEB 迫 | uni8FEB-TW | Consider redesigning the Radical 162 component; Issue #50 |
| U+8FED 迭 | uni8FED-TW | Consider redesigning the Radical 162 component; Issue #50 |
| U+8FEE 迮 | uni8FEE-TW | Consider redesigning the Radical 162 component; Issue #50 |
| U+8FF0 述 | uni8FF0-TW | Consider redesigning the Radical 162 component; Issue #50 |
| U+8FF4 迴 | uni8FF4-TW | Consider redesigning the Radical 162 component; Issue #50 |
| U+8FF5 迵 | uni8FF5-TW | Consider redesigning the Radical 162 component; Issue #50 |
| U+8FF6 迶 | uni8FF6-TW | Consider redesigning the Radical 162 component; Issue #50 |
| U+8FF7 迷 | uni8FF7-TW | Consider redesigning the Radical 162 component; Issue #50 |
| U+8FF8 迸 | uni8FF8-TW | Consider redesigning the Radical 162 component; Issue #50 |
| U+8FFA 迺 | uni8FFA-TW | Consider redesigning the Radical 162 component; Issue #50 |
| U+8FFB 迻 | uni8FFB-TW | Consider redesigning the Radical 162 component; Issue #50 |
| U+8FFC 迼 | uni8FFC-TW | Consider redesigning the Radical 162 component; Issue #50 |
| U+8FFD 追 | uni8FFD-TW | Consider redesigning the Radical 162 component; Issue #50 |
| U+8FFE 迾 | uni8FFE-TW | Consider redesigning the Radical 162 component; Issue #50 |
| U+8FFF 迿 | uni8FFF-TW | Consider redesigning the Radical 162 component; Issue #50 |
| U+9000 退 | uni9000-TW | Consider redesigning the Radical 162 component; Issue #50 |
| U+9001 送 | uni9001-TW | Consider redesigning the Radical 162 component; Issue #50 |
| U+9002 适 | uni9002-TW | Consider redesigning the Radical 162 component; Issue #50 |
| U+9003 逃 | uni9003-TW | Consider redesigning the Radical 162 component; Issue #50 |
| U+9004 逄 | uni9004-TW | Consider redesigning the Radical 162 component; Issue #50 |
| U+9005 逅 | uni9005-TW | Consider redesigning the Radical 162 component; Issue #50 |
| U+9006 逆 | uni9006-TW | Consider redesigning the Radical 162 component; Issue #50 |
| U+900B 逋 | uni900B-TW | Consider redesigning the Radical 162 component; Issue #50 |
| U+900C 逌 | uni900C-TW | Consider redesigning the Radical 162 component; Issue #50 |
| U+900D 逍 | uni900D-TW | Consider redesigning the Radical 162 component; Issue #50 |
| U+900F 透 | uni900F-TW | Consider redesigning the Radical 162 component; Issue #50 |
| U+9010 逐 | uni9010-TW | Consider redesigning the Radical 162 component; Issue #50 |
| U+9011 逑 | uni9011-TW | Consider redesigning the Radical 162 component; Issue #50 |
| U+9014 途 | uni9014-TW | Consider redesigning the Radical 162 component; Issue #50 |
| U+9015 逕 | uni9015-TW | Consider redesigning the Radical 162 component; Issue #50 |
| U+9016 逖 | uni9016-TW | Consider redesigning the Radical 162 component; Issue #50 |
| U+9017 逗 | uni9017-TW | Consider redesigning the Radical 162 component; Issue #50 |
| U+9019 這 | uni9019-TW | Consider redesigning the Radical 162 component; Issue #50 |
| U+901A 通 | uni901A-TW | Consider redesigning the Radical 162 component; Issue #50 |
| U+901B 逛 | uni901B-TW | Consider redesigning the Radical 162 component; Issue #50 |
| U+901C 逜 | uni901C-TW | Consider redesigning the Radical 162 component; Issue #50 |
| U+901D 逝 | uni901D-TW | Consider redesigning the Radical 162 component; Issue #50 |
| U+901E 逞 | uni901E-TW | Consider redesigning the Radical 162 component; Issue #50 |
| U+901F 速 | uni901F-TW | Consider redesigning the Radical 162 component; Issue #50 |
| U+9020 造 | uni9020-TW | Consider redesigning the Radical 162 component; Issue #50 |
| U+9021 逡 | uni9021-TW | Consider redesigning the Radical 162 component; Issue #50 |
| U+9022 逢 | uni9022-TW | Consider redesigning the Radical 162 component; Issue #50 |
| U+9023 連 | uni9023-TW | Consider redesigning the Radical 162 component; Issue #50 |
| U+9024 逤 | uni9024-TW | Consider redesigning the Radical 162 component; Issue #50 |
| U+902D 逭 | uni902D-TW | Consider redesigning the Radical 162 component; Issue #50 |
| U+902E 逮 | uni902E-TW | Consider redesigning the Radical 162 component; Issue #50 |
| U+902F 逯 | uni902F-TW | Consider redesigning the Radical 162 component; Issue #50 |
| U+9031 週 | uni9031-TW | Consider redesigning the Radical 162 component; Issue #50 |
| U+9032 進 | uni9032-TW | Consider redesigning the Radical 162 component; Issue #50 |
| U+9034 逴 | uni9034-TW | Consider redesigning the Radical 162 component; Issue #50 |
| U+9035 逵 | uni9035-TW | Consider redesigning the Radical 162 component; Issue #50 |
| U+9036 逶 | uni9036-TW | Consider redesigning the Radical 162 component; Issue #50 |
| U+9038 逸 | uni9038-TW | Consider redesigning the Radical 162 component; Issue #50 |
| U+903C 逼 | uni903C-TW | Consider redesigning the Radical 162 component; Issue #50 |
| U+903D 逽 | uni903D-TW | Consider redesigning the Radical 162 component; Issue #50 |
| U+903E 逾 | uni903E-TW | Consider redesigning the Radical 162 component; Issue #50 |
| U+903F 逿 | uni903F-TW | Consider redesigning the Radical 162 component; Issue #50 |
| U+9041 遁 | uni9041-TW | Consider redesigning the Radical 162 component; Issue #50 |
| U+9042 遂 | uni9042-TW | Consider redesigning the Radical 162 component; Issue #50 |
| U+9044 遄 | uni9044-TW | Consider redesigning the Radical 162 component; Issue #50 |
| U+9047 遇 | uni9047-TW | Consider redesigning the Radical 162 component; Issue #50 |
| U+9049 遉 | uni9049-TW | Consider redesigning the Radical 162 component; Issue #50 |
| U+904A 遊 | uni904A-TW | Consider redesigning the Radical 162 component; Issue #50 |
| U+904B 運 | uni904B-TW | Consider redesigning the Radical 162 component; Issue #50 |
| U+904D 遍 | uni904D-TW | Consider redesigning the Radical 162 component; Issue #50 |
| U+904E 過 | uni904E-TW | Consider redesigning the Radical 162 component; Issue #50 |
| U+904F 遏 | uni904F-TW | Consider redesigning the Radical 162 component; Issue #50 |
| U+9050 遐 | uni9050-TW | Consider redesigning the Radical 162 component; Issue #50 |
| U+9051 遑 | uni9051-TW | Consider redesigning the Radical 162 component; Issue #50 |
| U+9052 遒 | uni9052-TW | Consider redesigning the Radical 162 component; Issue #50 |
| U+9053 道 | uni9053-TW | Consider redesigning the Radical 162 component; Issue #50 |
| U+9054 達 | uni9054-TW | Consider redesigning the Radical 162 component; Issue #50 |
| U+9055 違 | uni9055-TW | Consider redesigning the Radical 162 component; Issue #50 |
| U+9058 遘 | uni9058-TW | Consider redesigning the Radical 162 component; Issue #50 |
| U+9059 遙 | uni9059-TW | Consider redesigning the Radical 162 component; Issue #50 |
| U+905B 遛 | uni905B-TW | Consider redesigning the Radical 162 component; Issue #50 |
| U+905C 遜 | uni905C-TW | Consider redesigning the Radical 162 component; Issue #50 |
| U+905D 遝 | uni905D-TW | Consider redesigning the Radical 162 component; Issue #50 |
| U+905E 遞 | uni905E-TW | Consider redesigning the Radical 162 component; Issue #50 |
| U+9060 遠 | uni9060-TW | Consider redesigning the Radical 162 component; Issue #50 |
| U+9062 遢 | uni9062-TW | Consider redesigning the Radical 162 component; Issue #50 |
| U+9063 遣 | uni9063-TW | Consider redesigning the Radical 162 component; Issue #50 |
| U+9067 遧 | uni9067-TW | Consider redesigning the Radical 162 component; Issue #50 |
| U+9068 遨 | uni9068-TW | Consider redesigning the Radical 162 component; Issue #50 |
| U+9069 適 | uni9069-TW | Consider redesigning the Radical 162 component; Issue #50 |
| U+906B 遫 | uni906B-TW | Consider redesigning the Radical 162 component; Issue #50 |
| U+906D 遭 | uni906D-TW | Consider redesigning the Radical 162 component; Issue #50 |
| U+906E 遮 | uni906E-TW | Consider redesigning the Radical 162 component; Issue #50 |
| U+906F 遯 | uni906F-TW | Consider redesigning the Radical 162 component; Issue #50 |
| U+9070 遰 | uni9070-TW | Consider redesigning the Radical 162 component; Issue #50 |
| U+9072 遲 | uni9072-TW | Consider redesigning the Radical 162 component; Issue #50 |
| U+9073 遳 | uni9073-TW | Consider redesigning the Radical 162 component; Issue #50 |
| U+9074 遴 | uni9074-TW | Consider redesigning the Radical 162 component; Issue #50 |
| U+9075 遵 | uni9075-TW | Consider redesigning the Radical 162 component; Issue #50 |
| U+9076 遶 | uni9076-TW | Consider redesigning the Radical 162 component; Issue #50 |
| U+9077 遷 | uni9077-TW | Consider redesigning the Radical 162 component; Issue #50 |
| U+9078 選 | uni9078-TW | Consider redesigning the Radical 162 component; Issue #50 |
| U+9079 遹 | uni9079-TW | Consider redesigning the Radical 162 component; Issue #50 |
| U+907A 遺 | uni907A-TW | Consider redesigning the Radical 162 component; Issue #50 |
| U+907B 遻 | uni907B-TW | Consider redesigning the Radical 162 component; Issue #50 |
| U+907C 遼 | uni907C-TW | Consider redesigning the Radical 162 component; Issue #50 |
| U+907D 遽 | uni907D-TW | Consider redesigning the Radical 162 component; Issue #50 |
| U+907E 遾 | uni907E-TW | Consider redesigning the Radical 162 component; Issue #50 |
| U+907F 避 | uni907F-TW | Consider redesigning the Radical 162 component; Issue #50 |
| U+9080 邀 | uni9080-TW | Consider redesigning the Radical 162 component; Issue #50 |
| U+9081 邁 | uni9081-TW | Consider redesigning the Radical 162 component; Issue #50 |
| U+9082 邂 | uni9082-TW | Consider redesigning the Radical 162 component; Issue #50 |
| U+9083 邃 | uni9083-TW | Consider redesigning the Radical 162 component; Issue #50 |
| U+9084 還 | uni9084-TW | Consider redesigning the Radical 162 component; Issue #50 |
| U+9085 邅 | uni9085-TW | Consider redesigning the Radical 162 component; Issue #50 |
| U+9086 邆 | uni9086-TW | Consider redesigning the Radical 162 component; Issue #50 |
| U+9087 邇 | uni9087-TW | Consider redesigning the Radical 162 component; Issue #50 |
| U+9088 邈 | uni9088-TW | Consider redesigning the Radical 162 component; Issue #50 |
| U+908A 邊 | uni908A-TW | Consider redesigning the Radical 162 component; Issue #50 |
| U+908B 邋 | uni908B-TW | Consider redesigning the Radical 162 component; Issue #50 |
| U+908D 邍 | uni908D-TW | Consider redesigning the Radical 162 component; Issue #50 |
| U+908F 邏 | uni908F-TW | Consider redesigning the Radical 162 component; Issue #50 |
| U+9090 邐 | uni9090-TW | Consider redesigning the Radical 162 component; Issue #50 |
| U+919A 醚 | uni919A-TW | Consider redesigning the Radical 162 component; Issue #50 |
| U+939A 鎚 | uni939A-TW | Consider redesigning the Radical 162 component; Issue #50 |
| U+93C8 鏈 | uni93C8-TW | Consider redesigning the Radical 162 component; Issue #50 |
| U+9429 鐩 | uni9429-TW | Consider redesigning the Radical 162 component; Issue #50 |
| U+9439 鐹 | uni9439-TW | Consider redesigning the Radical 162 component; Issue #50 |
| U+943D 鐽 | uni943D-TW | Consider redesigning the Radical 162 component; Issue #50 |
| U+945D 鑝 | uni945D-TW | Consider redesigning the Radical 162 component; Issue #50 |
| U+95E5 闥 | uni95E5-TW | Consider redesigning the Radical 162 component; Issue #50 |
| U+96A7 隧 | uni96A7-TW | Consider redesigning the Radical 162 component; Issue #50 |
| U+96A8 隨 | uni96A8-TW | Consider redesigning the Radical 162 component; Issue #50 |
| U+9746 靆 | uni9746-TW | Consider redesigning the Radical 162 component; Issue #50 |
| U+97C3 韃 | uni97C3-TW | Consider redesigning the Radical 162 component; Issue #50 |
| U+97C6 韆 | uni97C6-TW | Consider redesigning the Radical 162 component; Issue #50 |
| U+9AD3 髓 | uni9AD3-TW | Consider redesigning the Radical 162 component; Issue #50 |
| U+9C31 鰱 | uni9C31-TW | Consider redesigning the Radical 162 component; Issue #50 |
| U+9C41 鱁 | uni9C41-TW | Consider redesigning the Radical 162 component; Issue #50 |
| U+9D90 鶐 | uni9D90-TW | Consider redesigning the Radical 162 component; Issue #50 |
| U+1F22B 🈫 | u1F22B-TW | Consider redesigning the Radical 162 component; Issue #50 |
The following are glyph redesign suggestions that would be addressed at the same time as addressing HKSCS-2016 support, and are listed here so that they are not inadvertently overlooked:
| Character | Glyph Name | Description |
|---|---|---|
| U+3493 㒓 | uni3493-HK | Consider redesigning the Radical 162 component; Issue #50 |
| U+35FB 㗻 | uni35FB-HK | Consider redesigning the Radical 162 component; Issue #50 |
| U+3980 㦀 | uni3980-HK | Consider redesigning the Radical 162 component; Issue #50 |
| U+3F00 㼀 | uni3F00-HK | Consider redesigning the Radical 162 component; Issue #50 |
| U+3FF9 㿹 | uni3FF9-HK | Consider redesigning the Radical 162 component; Issue #50 |
| U+489B 䢛 | uni489B-HK | Consider redesigning the Radical 162 component; Issue #50 |
| U+48AD 䢭 | uni48AD-HK | Consider redesigning the Radical 162 component; Issue #50 |
| U+48AE 䢮 | uni48AE-HK | Consider redesigning the Radical 162 component; Issue #50 |
| U+4A24 䨤 | uni4A24-HK | Consider redesigning the Radical 162 component; Issue #50 |
| U+55F5 嗵 | uni55F5-HK | Consider redesigning the Radical 162 component; Issue #50 |
| U+5873 塳 | uni5873-HK | Consider redesigning the Radical 162 component; Issue #50 |
| U+58B6 墶 | uni58B6-HK | Consider redesigning the Radical 162 component; Issue #50 |
| U+6A0B 樋 | uni6A0B-HK | Consider redesigning the Radical 162 component; Issue #50 |
| U+6FBB 澻 | uni6FBB-HK | Consider redesigning the Radical 162 component; Issue #50 |
| U+6FBE 澾 | uni6FBE-HK | Consider redesigning the Radical 162 component; Issue #50 |
| U+717A 煺 | uni717A-HK | Consider redesigning the Radical 162 component; Issue #50 |
| U+71A2 熢 | uni71A2-HK | Consider redesigning the Radical 162 component; Issue #50 |
| U+71F5 燵 | uni71F5-HK | Consider redesigning the Radical 162 component; Issue #50 |
| U+78D3 磓 | uni78D3-HK | Consider redesigning the Radical 162 component; Issue #50 |
| U+84BE 蒾 | uni84BE-HK | Consider redesigning the Radical 162 component; Issue #50 |
| U+882D 蠭 | uni882D-HK | Consider redesigning the Radical 162 component; Issue #50 |
| U+8B62 譢 | uni8B62-HK | Consider redesigning the Radical 162 component; Issue #50 |
| U+8B81 讁 | uni8B81-HK | Consider redesigning the Radical 162 component; Issue #50 |
| U+8E46 蹆 | uni8E46-HK | Consider redesigning the Radical 162 component; Issue #50 |
| U+8FB6 辶 | uni8FB6-HK | Consider redesigning the Radical 162 component; Issue #50 |
| U+8FB7 辷 | uni8FB7-HK | Consider redesigning the Radical 162 component; Issue #50 |
| U+8FB8 辸 | uni8FB8-HK | Consider redesigning the Radical 162 component; Issue #50 |
| U+8FB9 边 | uni8FB9-HK | Consider redesigning the Radical 162 component; Issue #50 |
| U+8FBA 辺 | uni8FBA-HK | Consider redesigning the Radical 162 component; Issue #50 |
| U+8FBB 辻 | uni8FBB-HK | Consider redesigning the Radical 162 component; Issue #50 |
| U+8FBC 込 | uni8FBC-HK | Consider redesigning the Radical 162 component; Issue #50 |
| U+8FBE 达 | uni8FBE-HK | Consider redesigning the Radical 162 component; Issue #50 |
| U+8FC1 迁 | uni8FC1-HK | Consider redesigning the Radical 162 component; Issue #50 |
| U+8FCA 迊 | uni8FCA-HK | Consider redesigning the Radical 162 component; Issue #50 |
| U+8FCC 迌 | uni8FCC-HK | Consider redesigning the Radical 162 component; Issue #50 |
| U+8FCF 迏 | uni8FCF-HK | Consider redesigning the Radical 162 component; Issue #50 |
| U+8FD0 运 | uni8FD0-HK | Consider redesigning the Radical 162 component; Issue #50 |
| U+8FDA 迚 | uni8FDA-HK | Consider redesigning the Radical 162 component; Issue #50 |
| U+8FF9 迹 | uni8FF9-HK | Consider redesigning the Radical 162 component; Issue #50 |
| U+9008 逈 | uni9008-HK | Consider redesigning the Radical 162 component; Issue #50 |
| U+9012 递 | uni9012-HK | Consider redesigning the Radical 162 component; Issue #50 |
| U+9033 逳 | uni9033-HK | Consider redesigning the Radical 162 component; Issue #50 |
| U+9037 逷 | uni9037-HK | Consider redesigning the Radical 162 component; Issue #50 |
| U+9046 遆 | uni9046-HK | Consider redesigning the Radical 162 component; Issue #50 |
| U+904C 遌 | uni904C-HK | Consider redesigning the Radical 162 component; Issue #50 |
| U+9056 遖 | uni9056-HK | Consider redesigning the Radical 162 component; Issue #50 |
| U+9061 遡 | uni9061-HK | Consider redesigning the Radical 162 component; Issue #50 |
| U+9064 遤 | uni9064-HK | Consider redesigning the Radical 162 component; Issue #50 |
| U+906C 遬 | uni906C-HK | Consider redesigning the Radical 162 component; Issue #50 |
| U+93E0 鏠 | uni93E0-HK | Consider redesigning the Radical 162 component; Issue #50 |
| U+968F 随 | uni968F-HK | Consider redesigning the Radical 162 component; Issue #50 |
| U+9938 餸 | uni9938-HK | Consider redesigning the Radical 162 component; Issue #50 |
| U+9B14 鬔 | uni9B14-HK | Consider redesigning the Radical 162 component; Issue #50 |
| U+FE15 ︕ | uniFE15 | Consider making the dot slight smaller; Noto CJK Issue 91 |
| U+FE16 ︖ | uniFE16 | Consider making the dot slight smaller; Noto CJK Issue 91 |
| U+FF01 ！ | uniFF01 & uniFF01-CN | Consider making the dot slight smaller; Noto CJK Issue 91 |
| U+FF1F ？ | uniFF1F & uniFF1F-CN | Consider making the dot slight smaller; Noto CJK Issue 91 |
| U+FF49 ｉ | uniFF49 | Revert to the un-serifed form (without arm) |
| U+FF4A ｊ | uniFF4A | Revert to the un-serifed form (without arm) |
| U+FF4C ｌ | uniFF4C | Revert to the un-serifed form (without arm) |
| U+2004E 𠁎 | u2004E-HK | Consider redesigning the Radical 162 component; Issue #50 |
| U+210B4 𡂴 | u210B4-HK | Consider redesigning the Radical 162 component; Issue #50 |
| U+210F4 𡃴 | u210F4-HK | Consider redesigning the Radical 162 component; Issue #50 |
| U+2143F 𡐿 | u2143F-HK | Consider redesigning the Radical 162 component; Issue #50 |
| U+2183B 𡠻 | u2183B-HK | Consider redesigning the Radical 162 component; Issue #50 |
| U+23262 𣉢 | u23262-HK | Consider redesigning the Radical 162 component; Issue #50 |
| U+2408D 𤂍 | u2408D-HK | Consider redesigning the Radical 162 component; Issue #50 |
| U+24ABC 𤪼 | u24ABC-HK | Consider redesigning the Radical 162 component; Issue #50 |
| U+26ED7 𦻗 | u26ED7-HK | Consider redesigning the Radical 162 component; Issue #50 |
| U+26FBE 𦾾 | u26FBE-HK | Consider redesigning the Radical 162 component; Issue #50 |
| U+273FF 𧏿 | u273FF-HK | Consider redesigning the Radical 162 component; Issue #50 |
| U+27785 𧞅 | u27785-HK | Consider redesigning the Radical 162 component; Issue #50 |
| U+28468 𨑨 | u28468-HK | Consider redesigning the Radical 162 component; Issue #50 |
| U+2846C 𨑬 | u2846C-HK | Consider redesigning the Radical 162 component; Issue #50 |
| U+28473 𨑳 | u28473-HK | Consider redesigning the Radical 162 component; Issue #50 |
| U+28482 𨒂 | u28482-HK | Consider redesigning the Radical 162 component; Issue #50 |
| U+28501 𨔁 | u28501-HK | Consider redesigning the Radical 162 component; Issue #50 |
| U+2853C 𨔼 | u2853C-HK | Consider redesigning the Radical 162 component; Issue #50 |
| U+2853D 𨔽 | u2853D-HK | Consider redesigning the Radical 162 component; Issue #50 |
| U+2856C 𨕬 | u2856C-HK | Consider redesigning the Radical 162 component; Issue #50 |
| U+285E8 𨗨 | u285E8-HK | Consider redesigning the Radical 162 component; Issue #50 |
| U+285F4 𨗴 | u285F4-HK | Consider redesigning the Radical 162 component; Issue #50 |
| U+28600 𨘀 | u28600-HK | Consider redesigning the Radical 162 component; Issue #50 |
| U+2860B 𨘋 | u2860B-HK | Consider redesigning the Radical 162 component; Issue #50 |
| U+28625 𨘥 | u28625-HK | Consider redesigning the Radical 162 component; Issue #50 |
| U+2863B 𨘻 | u2863B-HK | Consider redesigning the Radical 162 component; Issue #50 |
| U+28BB9 𨮹 | u28BB9-HK | Consider redesigning the Radical 162 component; Issue #50 |
| U+2915B 𩅛 | u2915B-HK | Consider redesigning the Radical 162 component; Issue #50 |
| U+29EAC 𩺬 | u29EAC-HK | Consider redesigning the Radical 162 component; Issue #50 |
| U+29EF8 𩻸 | u29EF8-HK | Consider redesigning the Radical 162 component; Issue #50 |
| U+29F23 𩼣 | u29F23-HK | Consider redesigning the Radical 162 component; Issue #50 |
It would be great if the design of "五" could be unified within CN and also with JP.
Code Charts indicate that the completely vertical version is good for China too.
As a Traditional Chinese user, I prefer the completely vertical version.
豎排默認 Kerning 的逗號太靠上。
@cathree3: The issue is not with kerning (the 'vkrn' GPOS feature), but with 'vpal' GPOS feature, which must be activated if the 'vkrn' GPOS feature is enabled. You can get the same effect by turning on only the 'vpal' GPOS feature:
Anyway, thank you for this report, which will be noted for the Version 2.000 update.
The shape of 艹 of 鿊 in Source Han Sans CN (1.004) is not consistent with China style (it looks like 十十). In Serif CN (1.000) it is fine (卄). 龩 is not okay in Sans and Serif both, in the latter it looks like Taiwan style. The design of 鿀 is a little inconsistent with 醫, and the design of 龳 is inconsistent with 陸.
U+9FCA 鿊 is an H-Source character that corresponds to HKSCS-2008, and is technically outside the scope of GB 18030. The Serif font is technically wrong, but that is due to the almost total lack of lack of HK support. Serif Version 2.000 will include an HK glyph for this character, and whether the CN glyph remains has not yet been determined.
Ditto for U+9FA9 龩 and U+9FB3 龳.
U+9FC0 鿀 is technically a Japanese character (it came from Adobe-Japan1-6), so any inconsistency with U+91AB 醫 that is outside the scope of the Japanese versions is expected.
Welcome to the world of Pan-CJK fonts!
Since GB18030 covers nearly everything, would it be probable that SHS will ship with the glyphs for the remaining codepoints in China's orthography?
@hfhchan You need to consider that Source Han is reaching the limit on the number of glyphs. So full coverage of CJK codepoints are impossible without multiple font files or simply too expensive.
Right. (And, I'd like to point out that "the remaining code points in China's orthography" seems a bit ambiguous, because the way in which GB 18030 is structured and designed suggests that all CJK Unified ideographs represent China's orthography.) Source Han Sans is already full, and my next challenge is to somehow squeeze in the additional HK glyphs, which are currently being designed, into what is effectively (and literally) a full glyph set, without creating a separate glyph set.
At some point, though definitely not in the near future, we will need to create a separate glyph set (or sets), to support the rest of Extension B and the other extensions.
Just for the info, that WenQuanYi font have been trying to provide full CJK coverage with the China's orthography. Unfortunately that didn't get much interests so that WenQuanYi did not have a release supporting Extension B. The only font project that has full coverage including extensions, AFAIK, is GlyphWiki and its Hanazono Mincho font, which unfortunately defaults to Japanese orthography.
Will Source Han Sans switch to a narrower U+2236? The current glyph implementation does not work well with number ratios (1∶2) and time (12∶00). It looks almost like a CJK colon.
The glyph for U+2236 ∶ RATIO is typically full-width in CJK fonts, because it is present in the GB 2312 (PRC) and KS X 1001 (ROK) standards, and it is therefore East Asian Ambiguous according to UAX 11. Isn't the more practical solution to simply use U+003A : COLON? Especially for time, I think that U+003A is much, much more commonly used.
The time part comes from the GNOME environment on Linux, which has quite some serious use of Unicode in its HIG. U+2236 is used for time in GNOME due to those rules.
I guess in that case I should recommend Linux distributions to put a western Sans like Source Sans Pro before Source Han Sans. The obvious alternative solution is to just change all the time separators in localization files, but I am not sure I want to do this for a community that avoids using em dashes due to "font support/tofu concerns".
@Artoria2e5 There shouldn't be any serious problem of using a fullwidth ratio mark, at least in China and Korea. The time format (12:00) should use a colon, not ratio mark, by the way. (Did ISO 8601 specify a ratio mark for this?)
@Explorer09 Did the C language specify curly quotes for strings? Machine-readable portable text is different from not-so-portable human text.
For "China and Korea", I am sure my math textbook and my cooking oil (金龙鱼 1∶1∶1 调和油) don't work like that.
@Artoria2e5 I hate smamming the issue thread like this. But if GNOME HIG specifys ratio mark as time unit separators, then it's GNOME's fault to think time units are ratios. Try some common sense. Your example of 金龙鱼 1∶1∶1 调和油 does mean ratio, however.
Off-topic note: using curly quotes in C language is wrong, even in print. It was tolerable only because people are lazy to turn off smart quotes whrn typing code in word processors, or writes curly quotes for convenience in handwriting. Please don't format code in that way in serious documents (technical specs, code textbooks, etc.), use straight quotes where they supposed to be.
Depending on a glyph for U+2236 ∶ RATIO to be universally present in CJK fonts—perhaps even in fonts in general—is incredibly unwise. The only reason why the Source Han (and Noto CJK) typeface families include it at all is because it is present in PRC's GB 2312 standard, and to a lesser extent because it is also present in ROK's KS X 1001 standard.
Furthermore, Simplified Chinese fonts, which are arguably the most wide-spread CJK fonts that include a glyph for this particular character, almost universally include a full-width glyph for it. Typical Japanese fonts, particular those based on Adobe-Japan1-6 or earlier Supplements that number in the hundreds, do not include this glyph at all.
Certainly when expressing time, the tried-and-true ASCII colon, U+003A, is your best friend, and arguably the most appropriate character for the task.
I would like to suggest to consider unifying the ⺮ radical for all regions, using the form that the dots are connected to the horizontal line above. This applies to both the Sans and Serif version.
Currently, the dots of the ⺮ component doesn't join the horizontal stoke above just for TW variant. The forthcoming HK variant will probably follow suit.
⺮ is a variant of 竹 which vertical strokes are essentially connected to the horizontal strokes. There isn't a "must" to make it disjointed. A joined form won't confuse user in any way. It doesn't conflict with other component of different origin. The stroke count and order don't change. So I inclined to believe that it doesn't result in a violation of the regional standard (it's just like writing the dot closer to the horizontal line).
Using a joined version of ⺮ can:
- frees up a glyph spaces for something more meaningful.
- reduces chance of discrepancies when viewing articles with characters outside the TW/HK supported range.
- creates a more pleasant reading experience because of less "noises" in a glyph. The disjoint version doesn't only not help but can sometimes disturb viewer's eyes in certain circumstances, like 箔:
@tamcy Given where we are with the Source Han Sans Version 2.000 project, it may be too late, unless we need to find a way to free up more CIDs to accommodate new glyphs, mainly HK ones. If it is too late, it would be for a post-2.000 update.
For Source Han Serif, this is definitely something to consider, and given that no HK glyphs have been included thus far, except for a small number of "filler" glyphs, mainly at the end of the URO, doing this within the scope of Version 2.000 is best.
Anyway, I like this idea. Thank you for suggesting it.
While we're on this topic, there is a particular JP/KR and CN/TW/HK difference only in Source Han Sans that has been bothering me, and while it is up to our typeface designer to decide, my preference would be to follow the CN/TW/HK style for this roof-like component:
This would also free up many CIDs if this difference is unified.
As a Hong Kong user, I would actually prefer Source Han Sans' JP/KR rooftop forms over the CN/TW/HK ones. The balance of the JP/KR glyphs is much better.
@tamcy Perhaps I should remind you that in TW glyph standard, the 氵 (水) radical has the third stroke being simply T 提, and not DT 點提, even in Ming typeface.
The 箔 glyph showed an example on Source Han Serif deviating from the TW MOE standard:
(Glyph from MOE attached below)
http://language.moe.gov.tw/001/Upload/files/SITE_CONTENT/M0001/SUNGTI/as28.htm
I am of the very strong opinion that such glyph standards do not need to be followed too closely, especially when the actual shapes could easily be construed as mere typeface design differences. When one follows such glyph standards too closely, the end result can effectively be a clone of the typeface that was used to prepare the actual glyph standard, or something very close. Anyway, the third (lower) stroke of the 氵 component is a perfect example of this, as are the second and fourth strokes of the split 艹 component in terms of pointing inward.
About the roof component, there are two reasons why I prefer to use the CN/TW/HK form rather than the JP/KR form: 1) the number of affected glyphs will be lower, which translates into less overall work; and 2) consistency with the Serif design. In any case, it is really up to our typeface designer's discretion, not me.
About the roof component, there are two reasons why I prefer to use the CN/TW/HK form rather than the JP/KR form: 1) the number of affected glyphs will be lower, which translates into less overall work; and 2) consistency with the Serif design. In any case, it is really up to our typeface designer's discretion, not me.
In that case, the protruding part of the top of 合 should be shifted slightly leftwards. The thickness of the CN/TW/HK glyphs is also markedly lighter than the JP/KR glyphs, especially in the black weight.
When one follows such glyph standards too closely, the end result can effectively be a clone of the typeface that was used to prepare the actual glyph standard, or something very close.
If work is not a main factor, then having the JP/KR jointed style would be rather refreshing for CN/TW/HK users.
When one follows such glyph standards too closely, the end result can effectively be a clone of the typeface that was used to prepare the actual glyph standard, or something very close.
It's part of the font designer's choice to follow it closely or not. Some fonts decide to follow them closely in order to be useful in textbooks (All Windows system fonts designed for TW, including Microsoft JhengHei, MingLiU and DFKai-SB, do so; I also heard some Japanese fonts that provide textbook variants). I'm not sure about Source Han Serif/Sans's policy, but I really don't mind much if SHS deviates from textbook standards as long as the reasons make sense.
@Explorer09 I'm well aware of this, but I also respect SHS's attempt to conform to regional standards. That's why I wrote to justify my suggestion to be a "design difference" one, not asking it to part away from the standard.
On the topic of roof-like component, I also like the idea to unify the form. While I don't a strong position on which style to use (both look fine to me), I have to admit that the connected JP/KR style is more pleasant to look at at the heaviest weight.
Oh, and if the CN/TW/HK style is to be used, please consider tweaking 僉 (U+50C9) 😅
Our typeface designer weighed in on this, and she strongly prefers to keep the current "roof" shape for the JP (and, by extension, the KR) glyphs. Given the amount of work that would be involved in extending this shape to the CN, TW, and HK glyphs, and given where we currently are with the Version 2.000 project, it may not happen as part of the Version 2.000 project. This note is merely meant to set expectations.
I'm just curious if the designers have considered a "hybrid" approach when unifying the two rooftop styles. I'm fine if it's not, but here's just a reference:
My first reaction after seeing the Microsoft YaHei Bold shape was that it was being clipped, most likely due to the sharp angle, and for that reason alone I would be very reluctant to adopt such a style.
As part of the SHS decision of unifying the "roof" style. May I suggest also
unify the glyph forms of 人(U+4EBA) and 从(U+4ECE)?
But there's one thing that troubles me.
As I start looking up the origin of this "roof" component, I found out that,
although characters like 今 倉 are categorized under "human" 人 radical in
Kangxi, their "roofs" are not historically "human". (The roof tops of 介 and 企
are indeed the "human" radical, by the way.) In Shuowen Jiezi, 亼(U+4EBC) is a
distinct radical (same meaning as 集 "collection"/"gather"), of which derives
今, 合, 舍, 侖 and 僉. 會 is a radical in Shuowen Jiezi but also has a 亼 top.
Likewise for 倉.
Although these historical differences no longer matter for modern Chinese
speakers (maybe for Japanese too), what can we do to the glyph style of
众(U+4F17)? This one obviously consists of three humans, and meaning-wise, I'd
like its top still looks like "human" a bit, rather then an over-symmetric,
inhuman top.
What does everyone think?
Please consider tweaking the CN/TW/HK version of 錯 U+932F (uni932F-CN?):
The left component, 金, always looks "shrunk" to my eyes. This is similar to an issue I reported earlier, where components of some characters appear to be far apart when compared when the JP/KR version:
This will be a non-issue when the roof component is unified, but as this may not happen in v2.000 I am going to raise the suggestion here anyway :).
䖙(U+4599) and 䭆(U+4B46) in 教育部標準宋體字形檔 are ⿱臥虒 and ⿱臥食.
@glll4678 U+4599 䖙 (CNS 11643 Plane 4) and U+4B46 䭆 (CNS 11643 Plane 4) are outside the scope of Traditional Chinese (TW) support.
I have perused the comments in the issues section regarding the glyphs and also this. I know already due to time constraints and technical limits (64K glyphs maximum) that the "Kangxi" (旧字形 in Chinese or 旧字体 in Japanese) forms which would extend to all Chinese characters will never be realised in the short term.
@c933103: With regard to:
As the PanCJKV IVD collection proposed by Adobe will include a pseudo region of KangXi, would it be possible to include KangXi as a pseudo region in font release, if glyph restriction is no longer a limit?
That's a loaded question, because there is still a 64K-glyph limit, and a non-zero amount of work is involved in producing a more complete set of so-called _ Kangxi_ glyphs.
While it would be disappointing (for a few of us) to remove additional JP glyphs that may cover some common use Chinese characters not in Adobe Japan 1-6 in an attempt to make way for HK glyphs, at least within 10-20 years, if more designers from the JP side would be willing to cover (in 旧字体 forms) all Chinese characters in GB-18030 (for the Kangxi neutral region), a separate branch would be made to do this. But it will really take a lifetime to realise this.
By the way, @kenlunde, may we know the full list of the non-Adobe Japan 1-6 JP glyphs to be removed? Just in case, so that we might bring them back for a separate Kangxi-neutral branch without having to go through all the glyphs one by one to compare what's removed between 1.004 and 2.000.
The list also applies to Source Han Serif.
@Marcus98T You will be able do this yourself quite easily. To prepare for this, grab the ordering file, AI0-SourceHanSans, for Version 1.004, remove all of the lines except for the range for Extension A and URO (they are contiguous), then extract the fourth column, which are the glyph names. Name that file v1004.txt. Once Version 2.000 is released, do the same, but name the file v2000.txt. The following command line will provide what you requested:
% diff v1004.txt v2000.txt | grep "^<" | grep JP
Thanks for your helpful reply, Ken.
I believe there’s no easy way to DIY self design or fix soon-to-be-removed JP glyphs (a few which might have very minor bugs), but that’s another whole story.
But all I know is that some proprietary software was used to design the heavy and extra-light masters and the other weights were made through interpolation, again with proprietary software, no easy task for ordinary people like me. I don’t think Fontforge can do it well.
@Marcus98T For the long-term, we plan to make available sources that are easier to work with, meaning that new glyphs can be added and existing glyphs can be modified by touching only the masters. For the short-term, don't hold your breath. A lot of planning and preparation is needed to make this a reality, given the huge scope of these projects.
It would be really great if the masters of those removed JP glyphs can be made available along with other glyphs in the future.
We actually have over 3K JP glyphs that were never released, because of the architectural limit. Many of these are virtually identical to a Chinese glyph, but many are unique. We can certainly consider providing the masters of those glyphs as part of our long-term plan.
@kenlunde Ah, I see. Hopefully we can finally make the Kangxi-neutral branch a reality, perhaps within 5 years... along with a few potential bugs fixed in those unreleased or removed glyphs...
I’m sure, case in point, that more unreleased JP glyphs have a vertical stroke in 宀 rather than a diagonal drop as seen in “modern” Chinese. The fact that pre-1950s Chinese prints in which characters like 宀 use the vertical stroke makes it more aesthetically pleasing and ideal for a Kangxi-neutral branch.