Consolidation of Glyph Sharing Suggestions #38

kenlunde · 2017-04-11T21:58:57Z

This issue is meant for tracking and submitting suggestions for glyph sharing changes that result in glyphs no longer being necessary. Any such changes in Version 1.xxx will be implemented via mapping changes, and the unused glyphs will be targeted for removal as part of the Version 2.000 update. Issues that were submitted before this consolidation issue was opened are referenced by issue number.

Remove the JP glyphs for U+35EB 㗫, U+618F 憏, U+6456 摖, U+66A9 暩, U+6C77 汷, and U+78DC 磜, uni35EB-JP, uni618F-JP, uni6456-JP, uni66A9-JP, uni6C77-JP, and uni78DC-JP, respectively, per Issue Consolidation of Glyph Correction Suggestions (See Issue #39) #27.
Remove the CN glyphs for U+4F8D 侍, U+6641 晁, and U+6C35 氵, uni4F8D-CN, uni6641-CN, and uni6C35-CN, respectively, per Issue Consolidation of Glyph Sharing Suggestions (See Issue #38) #28.
Remove the TW glyph for U+504F 偏, uni504F-TW per Issue Consolidation of Glyph Sharing Suggestions (See Issue #38) #28.
Remove the JP glyph for U+4EBD 亽, uni4EBD-JP, per Issue Error glyph for U+4EBD #34.
Remove the TW glyph for U+77A2 瞢, uni77A2-TW, per Issue Consolidation of Glyph Redesign Suggestions #36.
Remove the TW glyphs for U+76EC 盬 and U+8B04 謄, uni76EC-TW and uni8B04-TW, respectively, per Issue Consolidation of Glyph Correction Suggestions #39 (but first swap them with their CN glyphs, uni76EC-CN and uni8B04-CN, respectively; the latter requires adjustment).
Remove the JP glyphs for U+72B3 犳 and U+7300 猀, uni72B3-JP and uni7300-JP, respectively, per Issue Design difference between Source Han Sans K and Source Han Serif K #59.
Remove the JP glyphs for U+5125 儥, U+58B0 墰, U+6D2C 洬, and U+83C2 菂, and U+970C 霌, uni5125-JP, uni58B0-JP, uni6D2C-JP, uni83C2-JP, uni970C-JP, respectively, per Issue Design difference between Source Han Sans K and Source Han Serif K 3 #61.
Remove the KR glyph for U+4E7C 乼, uni4E7C-KR, per Issue Design difference between Source Han Sans K and Source Han Serif K 3 #61.
Remove the CN glyphs for U+62FF 拿, U+6301 持, U+6DE6 淦, U+6DFC 淼, U+6EB4 溴, U+732A 猪, and U+81EC 臬, uni62FF-CN, uni6301-CN, uni6DE6-CN, uni6DFC-CN, uni6EB4-CN, uni732A-CN, and uni81EC-CN, respectively.
Remove the JP glyph for U+6EA3 溣, uni6EA3-JP.
Remove the HK glyph for U+9FD2 鿒, uni9FD2-HK.
Remove the KR glyph for U+7199 熙, uni7199-KR.
Remove the KR glyph for U+52FB 勻, uni52FB-KR.
Remove the KR glyph for U+7A3D 稽, uni7A3D-KR.

Note To Self: I have not yet checked this report and after.

hfhchan · 2017-04-12T19:45:15Z

U+81EC CID 34088 is nearly the equivalent to CID 34089.

hfhchan · 2017-04-14T20:22:36Z

U+6DE6 24166 === 24165

hfhchan · 2017-04-14T20:25:20Z

U+6DFC 24211 = 24212

hfhchan · 2017-04-14T20:31:03Z

U+6E23 (JP) 24272 === 61621

kenlunde · 2017-04-14T20:35:39Z

@hfhchan: uni6E23-JP (CID+61621) and uni6E23uE0101-JP (CID+24272) are intentional duplicate glyphs that shall remain for Adobe-Japan1 IVD collection compatibility.

hfhchan · 2017-04-14T20:38:55Z

@kenlunde should they be mapped to the same CID though? as they look nearly identical

hfhchan · 2017-04-14T20:40:10Z

U+6EA3 24499 === 24498 (latter of which is likely to be going away as it is outside the scope of JP subset)

kenlunde · 2017-04-14T20:43:25Z

@hfhchan: About U+6E23 渣, the duplicate glyph shall remain for reasons already stated. Derivative implementations are free to do what they choose.

hfhchan · 2017-04-14T20:45:31Z

U+6EB4 24531 === 24530

hfhchan · 2017-04-15T17:22:52Z

@kenlunde: Ah, sorry I had not realized (until just now) that since GSUBs are done on a glyph basis, separate glyph IDs have to be maintained to make sure glyphs for IVD don't get substituted away. Sorry for the churn

hfhchan · 2017-04-21T08:32:14Z

No observable difference exists for the JP and CN variants of U+62FF and U+6301.

kenlunde · 2017-04-22T00:28:06Z

@hfhchan: Noted. The CN glyphs for U+62FF 拿 and U+6301 持, uni62FF-CN and uni6301-CN, respectively, will be removed in Version 2.000.

jimmymasaru · 2017-05-07T05:25:12Z

Glyphs for 猪, uni732A-CN and uni732A-JP can be shared.

tamcy · 2017-05-11T03:58:25Z

In this report, CN implies TW unless explicitly mentioned.

View image

旦 (U+65E6) : CN = JP
昧 (U+6627) : CN = JP
暖 (U+6696) : CN = JP
暴 (U+66B4) : CN = JP
曝 (U+66DD) : CN = JP
本 (U+672C) : CN = JP
杖 (U+6756) : CN = JP
枳 (U+67B3) : CN = JP
桓 (U+6853) : CN = JP
橙 (U+6A59) : CN = JP
沁 (U+6C81) : CN = JP
淪 (U+6DEA) : CN = JP
瀑 (U+7011) : CN = JP
異 (U+7570) : CN = JP
的 (U+7684) : CN = JP
瞠 (U+77A0) : CN = JP
秘 (U+79D8) : CN = JP
而 (U+800C) : CN = JP
蜀 (U+8700) : CN = JP
鴆 (U+9D06) : CN = JP
黴 (U+9EF4) : CN = TW

Some entries are with doubts:

的 (U+7684): ~~it seems that~~ it's confirmed that the designer intentionally make the width of the two components (白 & 勺) different for CN and JP - CN has a wider 白. Please ignore this one.
鴆 (U+9D06): in ancient writing, the last two strokes of 冘 are connected. Now they are disconnected, and IMHO their distance should be up to the style of the typeface, not a region-specific issue. For instance, "耽 (U+803D)" uses the same glyph for TW and JP, and looks completely fine. But this looks like the exception. Other glyphs, like 沈 and 枕, are separated.
沁 (U+6C81) , 秘 (U+79D8): the discrimination seems intentional - the designer seems to believe that the degree of rotation of the last to dots of 心 is a regional difference, not a typeface design discretion.

As a side note, I found that the KR version of the typeface (which serves a more traditional form of Traditional Chinese characters) more "smooth" to read than the TW version. Despite the glyph difference to comply with regional standard, I found that a number of CN-glyphs tend to push the glyph's 重心 (weight center?) downwards, which I suspect is one of the causes. Refer to 昧,曝,瀑,瞠,秘 in the this reported issue for some obvious examples. But I'm not in the position to comment on this professional matter, I believe it worth further investigation by a more authorized entity.

tamcy · 2017-05-11T11:57:43Z

徒 (U+5F92) : CN = JP
走 (U+8D70) : CN = JP
赴 (U+8D74) : CN = JP
起 (U+8D77) : CN = JP (*TW ≠ CN)
超 (U+8D85) : CN = JP
趖 (U+8D96) : CN = JP

View image

Notes:

趁 (U+8D81) and 陡 (U+9661) included in the image for reference.
For the JP glyph of 趖, vertical strokes of the 走 component are connected, making it inconsistent with other design. 樾 U+6A3E is another example.

tamcy · 2017-05-11T12:05:09Z

挑 (U+6311) : CN = JP
桃 (U+6843) : CN = JP
矽 (U+77FD) : CN = JP

hfhchan · 2017-05-11T12:48:21Z

For 矽 (U+77FD), the TW glyph can be replaced with the JP glyph, while the CN glyph kept for CN only.

It is typical design that the 夕 is widened at the top in CN locales. This is similar to the problem with 多 I reported earlier.

Explorer09 · 2017-05-17T06:17:57Z

U+4E0D (不): Two glyphs have identical strokes. Can consider merging. (Or is there any reason to have this minor positioning difference?)
U+574F (坏): Likewise.
U+4E15 (丕): If Source Han wishes to follow the TW MoE glyph (note 1), just like in U+4F3E (伾) and U+576F (坯), then at least be consistent. Let the vertical stroke barely touch the horizontal base.
note 1: http://language.moe.gov.tw/001/Upload/files/SITE_CONTENT/M0001/SUNGTI/as1.htm (丕 Number 100013)

)

Marcus98T · 2018-10-29T17:26:27Z

Remove the JP glyph for U+6EA3 溣, uni6EA3-JP.

I suggest you remove the CN glyph instead because the JP looks aesthetically better, then map the JP glyph to the CN, TW and HK locale.

Edited my comment because I was a bit rude earlier, but my suggestion remains intact. My apologies.

kenlunde · 2018-10-29T20:39:34Z

@Marcus98T Thank you. We'll take this under advisement.

lapomme · 2020-01-20T01:35:58Z

The CN glyph for 博 can be replaced with the KR glyph.

(KR left, CN right)

kenlunde added the suggestion label Apr 11, 2017

kenlunde self-assigned this Apr 11, 2017

This was referenced Apr 11, 2017

Consolidation of Mapping Change Suggestions #37

Open

Consolidation of Glyph Sharing Suggestions (See Issue #38) #28

Closed

Error glyph for U+4EBD #34

Closed

This was referenced Apr 16, 2017

Consolidation of Glyph Redesign Suggestions #36

Open

Consolidation of Glyph Correction Suggestions #39

Open

kenlunde mentioned this issue Apr 22, 2017

Upcoming Releases #45

Closed

Marcus98T mentioned this issue Nov 15, 2021

(Low priority) Replace uglier looking CN glyph for components with 侖 with JP glyphs, perhaps even restoring them from v1.001 #130

Open

Provide feedback

Saved searches

Use saved searches to filter your results more quickly

Consolidation of Glyph Sharing Suggestions #38

Consolidation of Glyph Sharing Suggestions #38

kenlunde commented Apr 11, 2017 •

edited

Loading

hfhchan commented Apr 12, 2017

hfhchan commented Apr 14, 2017

hfhchan commented Apr 14, 2017

hfhchan commented Apr 14, 2017

kenlunde commented Apr 14, 2017

hfhchan commented Apr 14, 2017

hfhchan commented Apr 14, 2017

kenlunde commented Apr 14, 2017

hfhchan commented Apr 14, 2017

hfhchan commented Apr 15, 2017 •

edited

Loading

hfhchan commented Apr 21, 2017

kenlunde commented Apr 22, 2017

jimmymasaru commented May 7, 2017

tamcy commented May 11, 2017 •

edited

Loading

tamcy commented May 11, 2017

tamcy commented May 11, 2017

hfhchan commented May 11, 2017

Explorer09 commented May 17, 2017 •

edited

Loading

Marcus98T commented Oct 29, 2018 •

edited

Loading

kenlunde commented Oct 29, 2018

lapomme commented Jan 20, 2020

Consolidation of Glyph Sharing Suggestions #38

Consolidation of Glyph Sharing Suggestions #38

Comments

kenlunde commented Apr 11, 2017 • edited Loading

hfhchan commented Apr 12, 2017

hfhchan commented Apr 14, 2017

hfhchan commented Apr 14, 2017

hfhchan commented Apr 14, 2017

kenlunde commented Apr 14, 2017

hfhchan commented Apr 14, 2017

hfhchan commented Apr 14, 2017

kenlunde commented Apr 14, 2017

hfhchan commented Apr 14, 2017

hfhchan commented Apr 15, 2017 • edited Loading

hfhchan commented Apr 21, 2017

kenlunde commented Apr 22, 2017

jimmymasaru commented May 7, 2017

tamcy commented May 11, 2017 • edited Loading

tamcy commented May 11, 2017

tamcy commented May 11, 2017

hfhchan commented May 11, 2017

Explorer09 commented May 17, 2017 • edited Loading

Marcus98T commented Oct 29, 2018 • edited Loading

kenlunde commented Oct 29, 2018

lapomme commented Jan 20, 2020

kenlunde commented Apr 11, 2017 •

edited

Loading

hfhchan commented Apr 15, 2017 •

edited

Loading

tamcy commented May 11, 2017 •

edited

Loading

Explorer09 commented May 17, 2017 •

edited

Loading

Marcus98T commented Oct 29, 2018 •

edited

Loading