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

Some CN glyphs are showing inappropriate JP or TW/HK forms for GB 18030 #202

Open
Marcus98T opened this issue Sep 20, 2023 · 0 comments
Open

Comments

@Marcus98T
Copy link

Marcus98T commented Sep 20, 2023

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,

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.

Originally posted by @kenlunde in adobe-fonts/source-han-sans#204 (comment)

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  
U+4E98  
U+5024 Yes
U+5141  
U+5177  
U+51CB  
U+51F1 Yes
U+5351  
U+535A  
U+559C  
U+5618  
U+565B Yes
U+57E0  
U+5835  
U+583A  
U+5C0F  
U+5F6B  
U+5FA9  
U+5FB3 Yes
U+5FC5  
U+601D  
U+6075  
U+6089  
U+60AA  
U+60B6  
U+60D1  
U+60E3  
U+611B  
U+6163  
U+616E  
U+6182  
U+6301  
U+635C  
U+6973  
U+6E20 Yes
U+732A  
U+754C  
U+7570  
U+7A0B  
U+7A42  
U+7A4F  
U+8133 Yes
U+819A  
U+81D3 Yes
U+8449 Yes
U+8511  
U+85AC  
U+865C  
U+8CB0 Yes
U+8D77  
U+961C  
U+99C6 Yes

JIS Level 2

Unicode Character Non-compliant?
U+51A4  
U+53A6  
U+5632  
U+568F  
U+5F99  
U+5FDD  
U+606A  
U+613C Yes
U+6187  
U+6191  
U+6199  
U+62FF  
U+63A3  
U+6641  
U+6763 Yes
U+67B3  
U+69C7 Yes
U+69DD Yes
U+6DE6  
U+6F91 Yes
U+6FFE  
U+7018  
U+701F Yes
U+70FD  
U+7162  
U+7199 Yes
U+7210  
U+732F Yes
U+73F1 Yes
U+76BA Yes
U+76E7  
U+771E Yes
U+77B9  
U+7C2B Yes
U+7CAB  
U+8085 Yes
U+81DA  
U+83B5  
U+856D Yes
U+8606  
U+8655  
U+876E  
U+89AC Yes
U+8D05  
U+8DFF 跿  
U+8F0C Yes
U+9112 Yes
U+941A Yes
U+958A Yes
U+984B  
U+9871  
U+9A65  
U+9C04 Yes
U+9C08 Yes
U+9DC6 Yes

JIS Level 3

Unicode Character Non-compliant?
U+34B5  
U+5307  
U+5861 Yes
U+6018  
U+6DFC  
U+7681  
U+784F Yes
U+7C01  
U+8168 Yes
U+865B Yes
U+8F2D  
U+95D3 Yes
U+9853 Yes
U+9856  
U+9857 Yes
U+985A Yes
U+9B9E  
U+9BCE Yes
U+9C50 Yes

JIS Level 4

Unicode Character Non-compliant?
U+3775 Regional design issue
U+3DC0 Regional design issue
U+4E40 Yes
U+5010 Yes
U+5342 Regional design issue
U+57F8  
U+5827  
U+5D42 Yes
U+5FC4  
U+5FE2  
U+611E  
U+6197  
U+61DF  
U+63D4  
U+682D  
U+69D6  
U+6C35  
U+6C3A  
U+6EB4  
U+7000 瀀  
U+7065  
U+7153 Yes
U+71DC  
U+789D  
U+7BC5 Yes
U+7BD6 Yes
U+800E  
U+8011 Yes
U+81EC Regional design issue
U+8279  
U+84F0  
U+84FD Regional design issue
U+8586  
U+899F  
U+8F00  
U+97A2 Yes
U+97F1 Regional design issue
U+9C6B  
U+9D11 Yes
U+9D76 Yes
U+9DB5 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.

Unicode Character Non-compliant?
U+2E8C  
U+322B  
U+323E Yes
U+3240 Regional design issue
U+32AE Yes
U+3689 Yes
U+3935  
U+3D35  
U+3E8A  
U+4576 Yes
U+4E41 Regional design issue
U+4E44 Regional design issue
U+4E97 Yes
U+4EFE Yes
U+4F95  
U+5044  
U+524E Yes
U+528C  
U+52F4  
U+5365  
U+53D0 Regional design issue
U+5422  
U+57CA Yes
U+596F  
U+5B5E  
U+5D9A Yes
U+5DC8 Yes
U+5FC8  
U+5FCE  
U+5FD0  
U+5FE5  
U+6023  
U+6038  
U+6056  
U+60A1  
U+60C0  
U+60C4  
U+60C9  
U+60CE  
U+60E2  
U+6102  
U+6117  
U+6133  
U+617F  
U+6895  
U+689E  
U+6950  
U+6A37 Yes
U+6A4A Yes
U+6A85  
U+6C56 Yes
U+6D0F  
U+6DB6  
U+6DF4  
U+6F7B Yes
U+6FCF Yes
U+703B  
U+7157  
U+719A Yes
U+7208  
U+7217 Yes
U+724E  
U+7293 Yes
U+7343 Yes
U+7369  
U+7379  
U+74C7  
U+74D0  
U+7575 Yes
U+76C1 Yes
U+7796 Yes
U+77B8 Yes
U+77D1  
U+782A Yes
U+7878 Yes
U+787E Yes
U+788B Yes
U+7916  
U+7F73  
U+8009 Yes
U+800F  
U+80F7 Yes
U+80F9  
U+815D  
U+81D4 Yes
U+8419  
U+8550 Yes
U+8659  
U+8745 Yes
U+8761  
U+89A8 Yes
U+8D72  
U+8D82  
U+8D88  
U+8DE5 Yes
U+8E5D Regional design issue
U+90C9 Yes
U+9193  
U+921F Yes
U+936F  
U+9402 Yes
U+9459  
U+967E  
U+967F Yes
U+9691 Yes
U+98C5 Yes
U+9A51 Yes
U+9B94 Yes
U+9BD0 Regional design issue
U+9D2F  
U+9DEB Yes

CN glyphs showing TW/HK forms

Unicode Character Non-compliant? Notes Use HK glyph (if cannot restore JP/CN glyph)?
U+42A2   CN glyph removed in v2 and a similar looking HK glyph is in its place  
U+6287 Yes There was no JP or CN glyph in v1 Yes (only for CN)
U+6423 Yes JP glyph removed in v2  
U+683A Yes JP glyph removed in v2  
U+6B76 Yes JP glyph removed in v2 Yes (also applies to JP and KR)
U+6E2A Yes JP glyph removed in v2  
U+6E61 Yes JP glyph removed in v2  
U+6F7F 潿 Yes CN glyph removed in v2  
U+6FBF 澿 Yes JP glyph removed in v2 Already using it
U+715F Yes JP glyph removed in v2 Already using it
U+717C Yes JP glyph removed in v2, however, there was no CN glyph in v1  
U+7182 Yes JP glyph removed in v2 Already using it
U+71E4 Yes JP glyph removed in v2  
U+724A Yes JP glyph removed in v2  
U+72C5 Yes JP glyph removed in v2, which could have been used for HK Yes (also applies to JP and KR)
U+735B Yes JP glyph removed in v2  
U+77A8 Yes JP glyph removed in v2  
U+77CE Yes JP glyph removed in v2  
U+78F1 Yes JP glyph removed in v2  
U+78FD      
U+7AFC Yes JP glyph removed in v2  
U+7B01 Yes JP glyph removed in v2  
U+7B1A Yes JP glyph removed in v2  
U+7B1D Yes JP glyph removed in v2  
U+7B44 Yes JP glyph removed in v2  
U+7B63 Yes JP glyph removed in v2  
U+7B78 Yes JP glyph removed in v2  
U+7B82 Yes JP glyph removed in v2  
U+7BA3 Yes JP glyph removed in v2  
U+7BD8 Yes CN glyph removed in v2  
U+7BE2 Yes JP glyph removed in v2  
U+7BFB Yes JP glyph removed in v2 Yes (also applies to JP and KR)
U+7BFD Yes JP glyph removed in v2  
U+7BFF 篿 Yes JP glyph removed in v2  
U+7C0A Yes JP glyph removed in v2  
U+7C1D Yes JP glyph removed in v2  
U+7C35 Yes JP glyph removed in v2  
U+7C8E Yes JP glyph removed in v2  
U+7CD0 Yes JP glyph removed in v2 Already using it
U+8012   Using JP variant glyph uni8012uE0101-JP for CN  
U+81AB Yes JP glyph removed in v2  
U+8215 Yes JP glyph removed in v2 Yes (also applies to JP and KR)
U+8381 Yes JP glyph removed in v2  
U+83C4 Yes JP glyph removed in v2  
U+83CB Yes JP glyph removed in v2  
U+8E3F 踿 Yes JP glyph removed in v2  
U+9FA6 Yes No Unicode reference for CN  
U+9FA7   No Unicode reference for CN  
U+9FA8 Yes No Unicode reference for CN, also see this issue to revert to the v1 glyph  
U+9FA9 Yes No Unicode reference for CN  
U+9FAA   No Unicode reference for CN  
U+9FAB   No Unicode reference for CN  
U+9FAC Yes No Unicode reference for CN  
U+9FAD   No Unicode reference for CN  
U+9FAE Yes No Unicode reference for CN  
U+9FAF   No Unicode reference for CN  
U+9FB0   No Unicode reference for CN  
U+9FB1   No Unicode reference for CN  
U+9FB2   No Unicode reference for CN  
U+9FB3 Yes No Unicode reference for CN  
U+9FC7   CN glyph removed in v2, but HK glyph looks identical  
U+9FC8 Yes CN glyph removed in v2  
U+9FC9   CN glyph removed in v2 and a similar looking HK glyph is in its place  
U+9FCA Yes CN glyph removed in v2  
U+9FCB   CN glyph removed in v2 and a similar looking HK glyph is in its place  
U+9FD0 Yes CN glyph removed in v2  
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

No branches or pull requests

1 participant