Please clarify in the readme that not all GB 18030 characters in the SC/CN version of the fonts follow the PRC glyph conventions

[CoolMarvel43]

I know this issue has been reported several times before, but this pertains to the readme, although I think it will only be updated when a new version of Source Han Sans/Serif is released.

Due to limited glyph space, some Chinese characters now show JP forms or TW/HK forms as the only glyph shape for CN. Granted those characters are occasionally or rarely encountered in a Chinese context. I have since listed down every single GB18030 character showing JP forms and my suggestions on whether to restore them.

This above graphic is just an example of some hanzi following non-standard forms and using STHeiti (a Mac font) as a reference for PRC glyph conventions (although yes, the reference may not be entirely accurate).

In the Glyph Set & Region-specific Subs section of the readme, it does state that for Traditional Chinese, "the glyphs may or may not adhere to the Taiwan MOE glyph standard". Adobe can try to get as much GB 18030 characters to follow CN conventions as possible with a major redesign of Sans (and merging unnecessary regional components), but because of the aforementioned 65K glyph limit, it is likely they won't be able to get all of them to do so. Therefore and regardless, the readme should be updated to state that "some glyphs may not adhere to the PRC glyph conventions due to limited glyph space" or something similar for the Simplified Chinese row.

This issue also applies to Serif, although the good thing is there are less CN glyphs removed than in Sans.

---

EDIT: The known issues section in Sans 2.004 does not mention anything about this issue.

Same for Serif 2.002, and I filed this very issue months before its release.

I have also edited the issue title several times for clarity.

---

EDIT 2: I moved the list of GB standards here because I have deleted some inappropriate comments, for organizational purposes.

Here is the list of GB standards according to Unicode which I believe are basic standards for characters to follow the PRC glyph conventions:

• G0 GB/T 2312-1980 (formerly GB 2312-80)
• G1 GB/T 12345-1990 (formerly GB/T 12345-90)
• G7 General Purpose Hanzi List for Modern Chinese Language, and General List of Simplified Hanzi
• G8 GB/T 8565.2-1988 (formerly GB 8565.2-88)

Reference: https://www.unicode.org/reports/tr38/tr38-33.html

If there is any GB list in the reference link that I missed out on (or if I put a standard that is not necessary), let me know.

[CoolMarvel43]

Just for reference, here's another quote from Dr Ken Lunde on 22 November 2018 with regards to why some GB Extension CN glyphs were removed in favour of JP forms, and why some out-of-scope JP glyphs that were coincidentally suitable for CN use were removed in favour of TW forms, for occasional-use or rare-use Chinese characters:

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 #204 (comment)

[CoolMarvel43]

Ahem, not addressed in Serif v2.002.

I am given the impression that this issue is being ignored because glyph shapes are not important here, but the fact remains that there are missing CN glyphs because there's not enough glyph space for all the GB18030 hanzi to follow CN standards. The people should know this fact already if it's communicated upfront.

[CoolMarvel43]

Maybe I will help by writing something like this in the known issues section:

Chinese - Simplified and Traditional

For the Simplified Chinese version of the font, due to a technical limitation of 65,535 glyphs, some rare-use characters will not follow the PRC representative glyph conventions and will show glyph shapes intended for other regions. Adobe is aware of this issue, but due to this aforementioned limitation, there are no immediate plans to address this. If there is an urgent-use character that does not follow the PRC representative glyph conventions, please file an issue and it will be looked into.

[punchcutter]

Since GB 18030 isn't a glyph standard you can't really say anything is not "GB compliant". I'm not opposed to having a note somewhere, but I wouldn't call it a known issue or an issue at all. It's just a statement of clarification that not all glyphs follow PRC representative glyph conventions.

[CoolMarvel43]

@punchcutter Thank you for the much needed reply. I have made some edits to my posts and my comments on other issues so the wording will better reflect the status of not following PRC glyph conventions, not the GB standard.