You signed in with another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You signed out in another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You switched accounts on another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.Dismiss alert
Yes, Source Han Serif fulfils the GB 18030 character set (and once again, they do not define glyph standards), but the glyph shape for some characters does not follow the PRC glyph conventions. Obviously, due to limited glyph space, we will never be able to get all GB 18030 characters to follow the PRC glyph conventions, and those affected characters are actually more important to Japanese, Taiwanese and Hong Kong standards than to Mainland Chinese standards.
As Dr. Ken Lunde said,
And yes, I am fully aware that some single-source ideographs have multiple region-specific glyphs. When push comes to shove, which was necessary for the Version 2.000 update, such glyphs are removed in order to make room for higher-priority glyphs.
Also, I'd like to point out that following standards such as GB/T 22321.1-2018 is not within the scope of the Source Han projects. I think of such standards as attempts to hammer square pegs into round holes, meaning that regional conventions are applied to ideographs that are not actually used in that particular region. It would be nice to do, but when dealing with a glyph set that is already full, practicality becomes necessary.
Thankfully, there are less glyphs that do not follow PRC glyph conventions in Serif than in Sans, but still, I think this issue can be solved by merging non-essential regional differences as mentioned in this issue.
This is for reference only. It is unlikely that any action will be taken by Adobe, but still, please do not close this issue. The reason why a similar issue was closed was because the OP raised the issue for only two characters, but this one is much more comprehensive.
Also please see this issue with regards to restoring essential glyphs required for CN use (which does not cover all of GB 18030, only the most basic standards that are required).
These lists will only cover the Basic Multilingual Plane, so basically CJK Unified Ideographs and CJK Extension A only, which is what GB 18030 is about. Any characters in the Supplementary Ideographic Plane (aka CJK Ext. B and higher) will not be accounted for. I might provide a pictorial accompaniment in a future edit.
CN glyphs showing JP forms
These lists are based on removed v1 CN glyphs, sorted according to the Japanese JIS standard levels. Which means that I may not catch every non-compliant GB 18030 character which never had a CN glyph.
This time, I will only note whether the characters are non-compliant with the PRC glyph conventions, but will not suggest to restore them as they are subjective. It’s up to Adobe to decide if they want to restore them.
If I mention "regional design issue", it means that while technically the glyph may seem to follow PRC glyph conventions, Japanese conventions may deviate slightly from the PRC conventions, for example, by deciding whether certain vertical strokes must connect to the other components or not, and even then, the stroke-touching may probably be inconsistent across different JP-designed characters.
JIS Level 1
Unicode
Character
Non-compliant?
U+4E0D
不
U+4E98
亘
U+5024
値
Yes
U+5141
允
U+5177
具
U+51CB
凋
U+51F1
凱
Yes
U+5351
卑
U+535A
博
U+559C
喜
U+5618
嘘
U+565B
噛
Yes
U+57E0
埠
U+5835
堵
U+583A
堺
U+5C0F
小
U+5F6B
彫
U+5FA9
復
U+5FB3
徳
Yes
U+5FC5
必
U+601D
思
U+6075
恵
U+6089
悉
U+60AA
悪
U+60B6
悶
U+60D1
惑
U+60E3
惣
U+611B
愛
U+6163
慣
U+616E
慮
U+6182
憂
U+6301
持
U+635C
捜
U+6973
楳
U+6E20
渠
Yes
U+732A
猪
U+754C
界
U+7570
異
U+7A0B
程
U+7A42
穂
U+7A4F
穏
U+8133
脳
Yes
U+819A
膚
U+81D3
臓
Yes
U+8449
葉
Yes
U+8511
蔑
U+85AC
薬
U+865C
虜
U+8CB0
貰
Yes
U+8D77
起
U+961C
阜
U+99C6
駆
Yes
JIS Level 2
Unicode
Character
Non-compliant?
U+51A4
冤
U+53A6
厦
U+5632
嘲
U+568F
嚏
U+5F99
徙
U+5FDD
忝
U+606A
恪
U+613C
愼
Yes
U+6187
憇
U+6191
憑
U+6199
憙
U+62FF
拿
U+63A3
掣
U+6641
晁
U+6763
杣
Yes
U+67B3
枳
U+69C7
槇
Yes
U+69DD
槝
Yes
U+6DE6
淦
U+6F91
澑
Yes
U+6FFE
濾
U+7018
瀘
U+701F
瀟
Yes
U+70FD
烽
U+7162
煢
U+7199
熙
Yes
U+7210
爐
U+732F
猯
Yes
U+73F1
珱
Yes
U+76BA
皺
Yes
U+76E7
盧
U+771E
眞
Yes
U+77B9
瞹
U+7C2B
簫
Yes
U+7CAB
粫
U+8085
肅
Yes
U+81DA
臚
U+83B5
莵
U+856D
蕭
Yes
U+8606
蘆
U+8655
處
U+876E
蝮
U+89AC
覬
Yes
U+8D05
贅
U+8DFF
跿
U+8F0C
輌
Yes
U+9112
鄒
Yes
U+941A
鐚
Yes
U+958A
閊
Yes
U+984B
顋
U+9871
顱
U+9A65
驥
U+9C04
鰄
Yes
U+9C08
鰈
Yes
U+9DC6
鷆
Yes
JIS Level 3
Unicode
Character
Non-compliant?
U+34B5
㒵
U+5307
匇
U+5861
塡
Yes
U+6018
怘
U+6DFC
淼
U+7681
皁
U+784F
硏
Yes
U+7C01
簁
U+8168
腨
Yes
U+865B
虛
Yes
U+8F2D
輭
U+95D3
闓
Yes
U+9853
顓
Yes
U+9856
顖
U+9857
顗
Yes
U+985A
顚
Yes
U+9B9E
鮞
U+9BCE
鯎
Yes
U+9C50
鱐
Yes
JIS Level 4
Unicode
Character
Non-compliant?
U+3775
㝵
Regional design issue
U+3DC0
㷀
Regional design issue
U+4E40
乀
Yes
U+5010
倐
Yes
U+5342
卂
Regional design issue
U+57F8
埸
U+5827
堧
U+5D42
嵂
Yes
U+5FC4
忄
U+5FE2
忢
U+611E
愞
U+6197
憗
U+61DF
懟
U+63D4
揔
U+682D
栭
U+69D6
槖
U+6C35
氵
U+6C3A
氺
U+6EB4
溴
U+7000
瀀
U+7065
灥
U+7153
煓
Yes
U+71DC
燜
U+789D
碝
U+7BC5
篅
Yes
U+7BD6
篖
Yes
U+800E
耎
U+8011
耑
Yes
U+81EC
臬
Regional design issue
U+8279
艹
U+84F0
蓰
U+84FD
蓽
Regional design issue
U+8586
薆
U+899F
覟
U+8F00
輀
U+97A2
鞢
Yes
U+97F1
韱
Regional design issue
U+9C6B
鱫
U+9D11
鴑
Yes
U+9D76
鵶
Yes
U+9DB5
鶵
Yes
Other Non-JIS Characters
Most of them are part of Adobe-Japan1-6.
Also, when I checked the removed CN glyph lists, some of them ended up showing TW/HK glyphs in v2 instead of JP, which I have edited out and moved them to the below section.
This is the Serif counterpart to these two issues on Sans, one for TW/HK and one for JP.
Yes, Source Han Serif fulfils the GB 18030 character set (and once again, they do not define glyph standards), but the glyph shape for some characters does not follow the PRC glyph conventions. Obviously, due to limited glyph space, we will never be able to get all GB 18030 characters to follow the PRC glyph conventions, and those affected characters are actually more important to Japanese, Taiwanese and Hong Kong standards than to Mainland Chinese standards.
As Dr. Ken Lunde said,
Thankfully, there are less glyphs that do not follow PRC glyph conventions in Serif than in Sans, but still, I think this issue can be solved by merging non-essential regional differences as mentioned in this issue.
This is for reference only. It is unlikely that any action will be taken by Adobe, but still, please do not close this issue. The reason why a similar issue was closed was because the OP raised the issue for only two characters, but this one is much more comprehensive.
Also please see this issue with regards to restoring essential glyphs required for CN use (which does not cover all of GB 18030, only the most basic standards that are required).
These lists will only cover the Basic Multilingual Plane, so basically CJK Unified Ideographs and CJK Extension A only, which is what GB 18030 is about. Any characters in the Supplementary Ideographic Plane (aka CJK Ext. B and higher) will not be accounted for. I might provide a pictorial accompaniment in a future edit.
CN glyphs showing JP forms
These lists are based on removed v1 CN glyphs, sorted according to the Japanese JIS standard levels. Which means that I may not catch every non-compliant GB 18030 character which never had a CN glyph.
This time, I will only note whether the characters are non-compliant with the PRC glyph conventions, but will not suggest to restore them as they are subjective. It’s up to Adobe to decide if they want to restore them.
If I mention "regional design issue", it means that while technically the glyph may seem to follow PRC glyph conventions, Japanese conventions may deviate slightly from the PRC conventions, for example, by deciding whether certain vertical strokes must connect to the other components or not, and even then, the stroke-touching may probably be inconsistent across different JP-designed characters.
JIS Level 1
JIS Level 2
JIS Level 3
JIS Level 4
Other Non-JIS Characters
Most of them are part of Adobe-Japan1-6.
Also, when I checked the removed CN glyph lists, some of them ended up showing TW/HK glyphs in v2 instead of JP, which I have edited out and moved them to the below section.
CN glyphs showing TW/HK forms
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: