Hello, thanks for your amazing work on this font!
I noticed that 遁 in Klee One deviates from the standard form in the 表外漢字字体表:
https://www.bunka.go.jp/kokugo_nihongo/sisaku/joho/joho/kakuki/22/pdf/jitaihyo.pdf
All other characters in the 表外漢字字体表 with the same radical appear to follow the standard (two dots), whereas 遁 has just one dot.
The Japan Ministry of Justice also shows this character with two dots in the radical: https://www.moj.go.jp/content/001131003.pdf The same goes for various online dictionaries. like dictionary.goo.ne.jp.
Why does this dot matter?
While the form with one dot is not technically incorrect, it appears to be the one glyph that makes Klee One inconsistent with respect to the government standard character forms. This is a shame, since all the other tricky cases of this radical 辶 appear to be handled perfectly (e.g. the newer 常用漢字 should have two dots, the older ones should have one dot, the older 人名用漢字 should have one dot unless they are the traditional forms of 常用漢字, etc.)
For purposes such as developing language-learning applications, where users benefit from adherence to a standard, Klee One is perfect, except for this one glyph.
Possible solutions
If the treatment of the radical in 遁 was a conscious design decision, it would be nice to have the reasoning documented here in this repository.
Otherwise, if the treatment of the radical in 遁 was not a conscious decision, I think it would be beneficial if:
- the missing dot were added to 遁,
- OR all instances of the radical 辶 had only one dot, making them consistent with traditional calligraphic/handwritten forms.
Personally, I think it would be better to add the dot to 遁. Not only would this be less work, but this would prevent a further inconsistency from being introduced: if 辶 were normalized to only one form in Klee One, then it would follow that the other radicals with multiple forms (like the left in 館/餅 and 神/祁) should all be normalized as well. But characters with these radicals appear to follow the standard forms just fine.