GF Cyrillic Plus / Pro update #237
Comments
|
These glyphs are already present in GF Cyrillic Plus, and should be removed from GF Cyrillic Pro Also the spelling has changed in Glyphs 3: |
|
https://github.com/googlefonts/glyphsets/blob/main/GLYPHSETS.md#gf-cyrillic-pro This text isn't accurate. GF Cyrillic Pro isn't for Headline typefaces. |
|
Hi @alexeiva,
Thank you for the suggested list. However, the Cyrllic Pro still needs to be redefined (please ignore it for the time being). Currently, only the Core and Plus have been revised and redefined, so please ensure the local variants listed above correspond to the latter. |
|
The list I mentioned corresponds to GF Cyrillic Plus |
Fantastic, ty! |
|
A few remarks:
Since we're trying to automate as much as possible with the new
Since we started reworking This brings me to another topic that might be of interest here: So far we have no programmatically defined inheritance, such as Cyrillic Core being included in Plus, and (later) Plus being included in Pro. As a result, after the recent redefinition of Core and Plus, Plus is actually missing a few glyphs that are present in Core (because the same is true for the languages defined for each). If you install the current code base and run So, if we want there to be inheritance, I can implement that. So far that's manual process as per the list of languages in Plus having to include the ones from Core. But Plus could be defined as "everything in Core, along with these additional languages: 1, 2, 3". The same is true for Latin and all other scripts. Currently we’re not strictly defining inheritance but we could. (We could also exclude glyphsets from one another like we can currently exclude languages, see Latin African).
The module uses the |
|
What's the urgency level of this issue, as in the context? |
I was thinking of using this list to feed a |
This is indeed a matter of interest. I have some related concerns/questions from the subsetting process I've been following for PPS. Would you be able to have a meeting to discuss this?
Ideally, the last definitions should be made before onboarding PPS. But beyond that specific project, I'm interested in improving the system overall. |
|
Hi, @alexeiva, Could you please inspect the Cyrillic Core and let us know if some local variants are also needed for it? :) |
|
For GF Cyrillic Core: Italic style: Roman style: |
|
Hi @vv-monsalve and @alexeiva, I've added dynamically inserted glyphsets for Cyrillic that contain the localized variants relevant for each glyphset. They are defined in complete here and are dynamically purged depending on whichever encoded base characters end up in each glyphset. So if new localizations need to be added, add them to the definitions files and the rest will be handled automatically. We need to pay attention to glyph name changes tho, because these localizations are now defined by their In a future version we may choose to define the localization based on their base letter unicodes rather than on They are currently rendered only into the I used the top comment here in this issue for the definitions, ignoring the third section in that comment, which I didn't understand. Please check the above |
|
Thank you for your work. I am keen on checking the new set. before
after
('Headline typefaces' are unrelated to these glyph sets) |
|
Changed it. Also, your comment was about Cyrillic Pro which we haven't reworked yet. It's okay to change the description, but we really need to find the language codes for each of these languages. Viviana said that we can focus on Cyrillic Core and Plus for now, which we have, but if you or anyone else feels like pulling out the respective language codes for Pro from |
can you point me to this |
|
It's here, in its own repo (just called I don't know what to do in case some languages cannot be found in that database. Then it gets more complicated. Do we first define them in At least it would be a good idea to note somewhere (such as in the description) that a certain language was previously included but can't be found through the new assembly system. |
|
Also note that the spelling might differ slightly of some languages between the old description and |
Is there an issue where this is being discussed? I am hoping Khanty will be included in Plus in the future, which is already in gflanguages but I think Tje is not in Plus |
|
@jpt There is currently no other issue to discuss this. Khanty as defined in gflanguages has 14,000 speakers which doesn't meet the intended purpose of GF_Cyrillic_Plus covering languages between 240K and 3M speakers, so I would say it should go into Pro if we ever redefine it. |
|
@yanone Apologies, I meant Pro. The old Pro docs do mention Khanty support but I think Tje wasn't encoded until Unicode 16, well after the glyphset was published |
@yanone Here is a list of 21 languages and their respective codes for GF Cyrillic Pro These languages are missing in current lang definitions: |
|
Thank you. |
|
Here is what I found: Oroch (oac_Cyrl) Ulch (ulc_Cyrl) |
|
Central Siberian Yupik (ess_Cyrl) some sample texts:
|
I suggest adding local variants to GF Cyrillic Plus
list for Italic styles:
list for Roman styles:
It's possible to use just one list for the italic style on roman styles too. These glyphs will be copies of default shapes.
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: