Wrong glyphs for some Cyrillic letters

[dscorbett]

Font

NotoSans-Regular.ttf
NotoSans-Italic.ttf
NotoSerif-Regular.ttf
NotoSerif-Italic.ttf

Where the font came from, and when

Site: https://noto-website-2.storage.googleapis.com/pkgs/NotoSans-unhinted.zip
Site: https://noto-website-2.storage.googleapis.com/pkgs/NotoSerif-unhinted.zip
Date: 2018-04-15

Font version

Version 2.000;GOOG;noto-source:20170915:90ef993387c0

Issue

Some obscure Cyrillic letters have incorrect glyphs.

In Noto, U+052A and U+052B (DZZHE) look like ligatures of de and ka. In L2/12-040, the italic glyph looks like a ligature of de and zhe, and the upright glyph looks like an upright version of the italic glyph, i.e. not like a ligature of upright de and zhe but of de, dotless i, and squished es.

L2/12-040 also shows the italic forms of U+052D CYRILLIC SMALL LETTER DCHE and U+A689 CYRILLIC SMALL LETTER DZZE, which in Noto are just slanted versions of the upright glyphs.

The first column of figure 39 of L2/07-003R has cursive glyphs for U+A681 CYRILLIC SMALL LETTER DWE (row 11) and U+A685 CYRILLIC SMALL LETTER ZHWE (row 15). The italic glyphs are most likely based on these cursive glyphs as opposed to slanted versions of the upright glyphs.

Figures 38c and 39b show that U+A683 CYRILLIC SMALL LETTER DZWE has an ascender, similar to esh.

Figure 8 of L2/08-144R shows an italic U+04A7 CYRILLIC SMALL LETTER PE WITH MIDDLE HOOK based on an italic pe instead of a slanted upright pe.

Character data

Ԫԫꚃԭꚉꚁꚅҧ
U+052A CYRILLIC CAPITAL LETTER DZZHE
U+052B CYRILLIC SMALL LETTER DZZHE
U+A683 CYRILLIC SMALL LETTER DZWE
U+052D CYRILLIC SMALL LETTER DCHE
U+A689 CYRILLIC SMALL LETTER DZZE
U+A681 CYRILLIC SMALL LETTER DWE
U+A685 CYRILLIC SMALL LETTER ZHWE
U+04A7 CYRILLIC SMALL LETTER PE WITH MIDDLE HOOK

Screenshot

[dscorbett]

This bug is also present in Noto Sans Mono.

[moyogo]

U+A683 CYRILLIC SMALL LETTER DZWE has an ascender like an esh

U+A683 CYRILLIC SMALL LETTER DZWE could be a component of esh (ʃ). Most samples of dzwe seems to always have a diagonal central stem (\) whereas esh (ʃ) has a vertical central stem in Noto fonts, but I don’t think that is an issue since they both come from the cursive long s. It would definitely be better than the current glyph.

[nizarsq]

This issue still reproducible

[dscorbett]

@moyogo, by “has an ascender like an esh”, I meant that dzwe should have an ascender, instead of a descender, similar to how esh has an ascender instead of a descender. I didn’t mean to imply one way or the other whether the stem of dzwe should have the same angle as that of esh.

[moyogo]

I meant that dzwe should have an ascender, instead of a descender, similar to how esh has an ascender instead of a descender. I didn’t mean to imply one way or the other whether the stem of dzwe should have the same angle as that of esh.

@dscorbett Esh, ʃ, has both an ascender and a descender. Dzwe, ꚃ, should also have both an ascender and a descender.
My comment about the stem was my own observation, as an additional comment to the issue, just to say that dzwe can be the same as esh whether it has a vertical or diagonal stem. Both are derived from cursive long s.

For the ascender and descender on dzwe, see the examples from https://www.unicode.org/L2/L2007/07003r-n3194r-cyrillic.pdf:

Figure 38c. Sample from Іевàнгеліа цӄ̆а, 1912(the Four Gospels in Abkhaz) [...]

Figure 39b. Sample from Бгажба 1964 [...] [all three are dzwe]

[dscorbett]

Oh, yes, of course; I don’t know why I wrote that. Both characters do indeed have both ascenders and descenders.