maybe there exist some problems with these glyphs, and others…

[MY1L]

Font

Noto Sans Arabic, and Naskh…

Where the font came from, and when

Site: https://notofonts.github.io/fonts/NotoSansArabic/unhinted/otf/NotoSansArabic-Regular.otf
Date: 2023年10月30日

Font Version

2.011

Issue

Observed results

U+06C1“ہ”~U+06C3“ۃ”:

I think glyphs U+06C1 as U+FBA7“ﮧ”, and U+06C2,U+06C3 :
(also NotoSansArabic-Regular v2.011)

Expected results

https://www.unicode.org/charts/PDF/U0600.pdf

https://www.unicode.org/charts/PDF/UFB50.pdf

[MY1L]

Issue 2 (unimportant)

maybe it's just a difference in arab calligraphy?

Observed results

NotoSansArabic-Regular v2.011 U+10EFD:

Expected results

（MY1L：Last v8）
https://www.unicode.org/charts/PDF/U08A0.pdf
https://www.unicode.org/charts/PDF/U10EC0.pdf

[khaledhosny]

As for the first issue, that is not an issue. The Unicode charts use the final form of U+06C1 to make it standout since its main difference from other heh-like letters is in the final form.

The other issue I think is a Unicode inconsistency, it is the same word and the proper Arabic spelling of the word would be with two dots. The proposal for U+10EFD shows only one source, so I can’t tell if the omission of the dots is intentional or just an oddity, so I’d rather keep it consistent unless someone has a evidence that the presence of the dots here is an issue,

[MY1L]

Issue 3 (unimportant)

maybe these glyphs Weight mismatch?
uni0898
uni0899
uni089A
uni089B
u10EFE
u10EFF

Observed results

NotoSansArabic-Regular v2.011:

Expected results

between Bold and SemiBold🤔
NotoSansArabic-Bold：

NotoSansArabic-SemiBold：

[simoncozens]

Agree, something's definitely gone wrong with weights here, compare U+10EFD and U+10EFE

Light:
Regular:
Semibold:
Bold:

[khaledhosny]

Some of the glyphs are optically corrected, others (new ones) are not.

[khaledhosny]

Smart components would have been helpful here, if they weren’t PITA to setup in glyphs.