fontworks-fonts / klee Goto Github PK

The correct stroke order for the woman radical has the beginning of stroke 2 above stroke 3, not on it.

Hi,

This represents any extended glyphs for Jula Bambara Mandenkan languages in West Africa spoken by 30 million. Is it possible to fill in the missing glyph? ɲ

Mɔgɔkɔrɔw kaɲi ka kɛ ni ŋania ɲuman ye

https://fonts.google.com/specimen/Klee+One?preview.text=M%C9%94g%C9%94k%C9%94r%C9%94w%20ka%C9%B2i%20ka%20k%C9%9B%20ni%20%C5%8Bania%20%C9%B2uman%20ye&preview.text_type=custom#standard-styles

Hello! I can't use this font because of big white spaces between in cyrillic letters. Latin symbols, digits, etc. are okay.

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.

The auto-hinting disbalance the text in small font size and destroy the fluency of strokes in large font size.

Here is a picture of the font in 12px:

*The imbalance may be exaggerated by the line I draw

And also a example of the 72px font:

There are some imbalance on stroke width. Some of the horizontal strokes become zigzag-like

Another example with the hinting:

'vertWidth' is missing. And I don't know how to import it into the .glyphs files.

U+5BEC (寬), a 人名用 (jinmeiyou) kanji that can be rendered using the retail version of Klee, cannot be rendered by Klee One.

This character has nothing to do with the representative glyph changes made in JIS2004, therefore in my opinion it should remain in the character coverage of the font.

Granted, U+5BEC is outside of the coverage of Adobe-Japan1 Supplement 4 (and the corresponding JIS2004 version). However, given that (1) the original Klee supports this codepoint and (2) the corresponding glyph uni5BDB.vari2 remains in Klee One, please consider restoring the mapping from U+5BEC to uni5BDB.vari2.

Would it be legal and OK to update and provide the source file for the Reiwa glyphs (both horizontal and vertical variants) since you open sourced the font? I only realised now that at that time the Klee font was open sourced, it was the previous version before the Reiwa update. Because when I checked the Font Book on my Mac, the Reiwa glyphs are present (at CIDs 15444-15445), but not in the open source version of Klee One.

While this font is originally not ProN, I hereby request that some hidden glyphs in Klee, like 懲, 海, 漢 be mapped to CJK compatibility ideographs (in this example, U+FA40, U+FA45 and U+FA47 respectively).

And characters like 晚, 吞, which are encoded in ProN fonts but not Pro, should be mapped to CJK Unified Ideographs (in this example, U+665A and U+541E respectively).

The images show that these characters are unencoded as shown by "Glyph 13,XXX".

I can't provide a full list because it will take up a lot of my time. However, I provided a sample list of what characters are mapped to ProN from one of Iwata's fonts. Since 祇 and 辻 are mapped to JIS2004 forms, might as well make this font ProN compliant.

as the title indicates

The one on the left is Klee while the one on the right is Iansui.

Why did you guys use a more minchō style stroke for 𠃋 rather than a more naturalistic hand written form like in the Klee derived Iansui?