Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Wrong glyphs in Latin F/G #422

Closed
Mercury13 opened this issue Apr 18, 2023 · 3 comments · Fixed by #427
Closed

Wrong glyphs in Latin F/G #422

Mercury13 opened this issue Apr 18, 2023 · 3 comments · Fixed by #427

Comments

@Mercury13
Copy link

Mercury13 commented Apr 18, 2023

Title

Several glyphs of Latin F/G are wrong

Font

NotoSerif-Regular.ttf

Where the font came from, and when

Site: notofonts.github.io
Date: 2023-04-18

Font Version

2.011

OS name and version

All OS

Application name and version

All apps

Issue

Wrong glyphs of Latin F/G

Character data

U+10780 modifier letter Small capital Aa (should be of small-cap size)
U+1078E modifier letter Small reversed E
U+1079F modifier letter Small Lezh with retroflex hook (maybe?)
U+107A7 modifier letter Small turned R with long leg and retroflex hook (maybe?)
U+1DF00 Latin small letter Feng digraph with trill
U+1DF01 Latin small letter Reversed script G
U+1DF05 Latin small letter Lezh with retroflex hook (maybe?)
U+1DF08 Latin small letter Turned R with long leg and retroflex hook (maybe?)
U+1DF09 Latin small letter T with hook and retroflex hook
U+1DF0F Latin letter Stretched C with curl (should protrude down rather than up)

Screenshot

изображение
изображение
изображение
изображение
изображение
изображение
изображение
изображение
изображение
изображение
изображение
изображение
изображение
изображение
изображение

(here’s 1DF09 from BabelStone Roman)
изображение

@Mercury13
Copy link
Author

Mercury13 commented Apr 18, 2023

Here’s my 1DF09, but it’s just a mixture of Noto’s 0288 and 01AD. So you’ll possibly need to revamp these letters too. And think how fullwidth retroflex hook will look.
изображение

@Buernia
Copy link

Buernia commented Apr 22, 2023

U+1DF00 is reported in #408 .

@moyogo
Copy link
Contributor

moyogo commented Apr 22, 2023

Hmm, I had a fix for a couple of those in a previous branch but missed them out for some reason when doing the Unicode 14 PR after it was impossible to rebase. I'll open a PR with a fix.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging a pull request may close this issue.

3 participants