You signed in with another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You signed out in another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You switched accounts on another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.Dismiss alert
Non-curly U+049B, U+049a, U+2C69 variants have descenders with larger horizontal shift to the right than the curly variants, thus making the descenders of non-curly variants distinguished better, than of curly ones.
U+049B.cv61=13 (non-curly)
U+049B.cv61=14 (curly)
I can't believe this is intentional. If you decide to fix curly variants by increasing descender's shift to the right, then could you please consider NOT closing this issue ASAP and altering other glyphs (all necessary variants) as well? Expecially U+0496, U+0497 and probably their non-slab/italic/italic-non-slab variants (but, I know, these are already too wide by themselves, so... use your taste).
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered:
Non-curly U+049B, U+049a, U+2C69 variants have descenders with larger horizontal shift to the right than the curly variants, thus making the descenders of non-curly variants distinguished better, than of curly ones.
U+049B.cv61=13 (non-curly)
U+049B.cv61=14 (curly)
I can't believe this is intentional. If you decide to fix curly variants by increasing descender's shift to the right, then could you please consider NOT closing this issue ASAP and altering other glyphs (all necessary variants) as well? Expecially U+0496, U+0497 and probably their non-slab/italic/italic-non-slab variants (but, I know, these are already too wide by themselves, so... use your taste).
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: