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

New check: napostrophe - suggest that we check for the presence of this glyph which is depreciated and warn to remove it. #4861

Open
3 of 7 tasks
EbenSorkin opened this issue Oct 11, 2024 · 4 comments
Labels
New check proposal We expect new check proposals to include a detailed rationale description and a suggested check-id

Comments

@EbenSorkin
Copy link

What needs to be checked?

(napostrophe - suggest that we check for the presence of this glyph which is depreciated and warn to remove it.)

Detailed description of the problem

napostrophe is a glyph in old glyph sets and even has a unicode ( 0149 ) but it is depreciated as a mistake in unicode now.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/N-apostrophe

Resources and steps needed to reproduce the problem

Just check for the presence of the unicode code point in the font I think.

Suggested profile

Suggest which profile the check should be added to. The most common are:

Note sure but: ( ? )

  • Vendor-specific: Google Fonts
  • Vendor-specific: Adobe Fonts
  • OpenType (requirements imposed by the OpenType specification)
  • Universal (broadly accepted best practices on the type design community)
  • Other:

Suggested result

Which log result level should the check have:

  • 🔥 FAIL (An issue that must be corrected for the font to function properly)
  • ⚠️ WARN (A potential issues that may need to be addressed)

Severity assessment

(Classify the problem on a scale of 1 (minor) to 5 (major). How "buggy" would the font be considered if it had the problem described?)

3?

@EbenSorkin EbenSorkin added the New check proposal We expect new check proposals to include a detailed rationale description and a suggested check-id label Oct 11, 2024
@felipesanches
Copy link
Collaborator

From that wikipedia article:

The Unicode standard recommends that a sequence of an apostrophe followed by n (’n) be used to encode this diagraph.[1] (A precomposed character form was included in Unicode for legacy ISO/IEC 6937 and CP853 document compatibility, as U+0149 ʼn LATIN SMALL LETTER N PRECEDED BY APOSTROPHE, but its use is deprecated.[2] The use of deprecated characters such as ʼn is "strongly discouraged".[3] However it continues to be used in the Afrikaans versions of Facebook and other publications, probably to avoid the tendency of auto-correction software (designed for English quotation marks) to turn a typed 'n (straight apostrophe, n) into ‘n (left single quotation mark, n), which is incorrect but common (rather than the correct form, ’n). The code point has been removed from some computer fonts, such as Charis SIL and Doulos SIL.)

The upper case, or majuscule form has never been included in any international keyboards and is not encoded as a precomposed character. It may be generated by combining (U+02BC ʼ MODIFIER LETTER APOSTROPHE) and N to create ʼN.

@felipesanches
Copy link
Collaborator

@EbenSorkin, I'm a bit concerned about the part that says "However it continues to be used in the Afrikaans versions of Facebook and other publications,"

@EbenSorkin
Copy link
Author

EbenSorkin commented Oct 16, 2024 via email

@rimas-kudelis
Copy link
Contributor

A suggestion that a character should be removed from a font would sound quite weird, I think. Is the goal of such suggestion to actively discourage the users from using it by making it somewhat inaccessible?

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
New check proposal We expect new check proposals to include a detailed rationale description and a suggested check-id
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

3 participants