Standardize the height of the 曰 components between 曰 (U+66F0), 抇 (U+6287) and 汩 (U+6C69)

[Marcus98T]

I am opening a separate issue after feedback from @tamcy at #443, because the original issue of remapping deviated into the design issue of the 曰 (U+66F0) component vs 日 (U+65E5), where traditional conventions say that the former must be shorter and wider. In light of this, I will quote the reply (and the suggestion) here:

The height of the 曰 component in uni6287-HK looks fine to me (both serif and sans). For serif, the design of 抇 also rhymes well with 汩 (U+6C69. not 汨 U+6C68).

It is actually the 曰 component in Sans version's uni6C69-CN that looks a bit too tall.

Also, from the code chart, unlike U+6C68 and U+6C69, it looks like different components are chosen by different sources for U+6287.

VN: 扌日 for U+6287; 扌曰 for U+22A8F.
KR: 扌日 in U+6287 (i.e. the same as VN); does not include U+22A8F
TW: 扌曰 for U+6287;扌日 for U+22A8F (i.e. the opposite of VN).
HK: 扌曰 for U+6287 (i.e. the same as TW but with a different design for 曰); does not include U+22A8F.
CN: Not sure.

Thus, if there are really something that needs to be done, I'd suggest the followings be considered for Sans:

1. The current uni6287-HK is modified from uni6287-JP. Technically 曰 should be a wider component compared to 日, so make 扌 narrower in width and make 曰 wider.
2. Create uni6287-TW from the adjusted uni6287-HK, make the middle horizontal line in 曰 connected, and replace uni6287-JP.
3. Modify uni6C69-CN and make the 曰 component shorter.

Sounds a bit complicated here, but the idea is to make Sans follow the setting of Serif.

Originally posted by @tamcy in #443 (comment)

But I have another idea here. I suggest that we adjust the two glyphs, 抇 (U+6287) and 汩 (U+6C69) to match the height of the 曰 (U+66F0) glyph, which is JP in Sans and CN in Serif (which I personally think the latter should be replaced with a JP glyph based off Kozuka Mincho, explained below).

From left to right: uni66F0-JP, uni66F0-TW, uni6287-JP, uni6287-HK, uni6C69-TW, uni6C69-CN

Which means 抇 (U+6287, especially uni6287-HK) should have the 曰 component slightly taller (especially towards the bottom), and also widen the 曰 component as per the quote above, and finally, the corresponding component for 汩 (U+6C69) should be modified to be shorter and wider (applies to both the CN and TW glyphs).

From left to right: uni66F0-CN, uni66F0-TW, uni6287-TW, uni6287-HK, uni6C69-TW, uni6C69-CN

And for Serif, I think we might need to either raise the 曰 component in 抇 (U+6287) and 汩 (U+6C69) slightly higher to match the 曰 (U+66F0) glyph, or shorten the 曰 (U+66F0) CN and TW glyphs, or try to balance the height of the 曰 component in the three glyphs somewhere in between.

Which is why for 曰 (U+66F0), as mentioned above, I suggest to replace the CN glyph (marked in red) with an unreleased JP glyph that could possibly be based off Kozuka Mincho (marked in blue), for which the glyph is slightly wider and shorter.

And on another note, the TW glyph for 曰 (U+66F0) can probably be made wider to match either the CN glyph or the Kozuka Mincho glyph.

Here is the overlay comparison between the two glyphs, same colour.

And finally, here's the possible height comparison if I replace uni66F0-CN with the corresponding Kozuka Mincho glyph that could be the uni66F0-JP glyph (same order otherwise).

[Explorer09]

I was about to report the issue that, in Source Han Sans TW or Traditional Chinese, the characters of U+6C68 and U+6C69 are not visually distinguishable from each other.

Sorry for using the web page screenshot for this, as this issue happens on my phone, and I don't have a decent enough word processor to test things further.
汨汩日曰
汨(mì)汩(gǔ/yù)日(rì)曰(yuē)

Can you tell which one is "mì" and which one is "gǔ"?
Happens with Source Han Sans only with Traditional Chinese. Source Han Serif has slightly wider 曰(yuē) radical so that the 汨汩 confusion won't happen.