Why does Noto Sans Mongolian claim chinese-simplified support?

[rsheeter]

#6938 (comment) says it's being done but not why.

[eliheuer]

There is a bit of explanation in a previous comment, but still unclear to me what the rationale is: #6938 (comment)

[simoncozens]

Reading the appropriate Fontbakery warn, it seems to be so that we get CJK fullwidth punctuation in the font. I hadn't realised that adding subset definitions to the metadata.pb also affects the categorisation. In which case, we should change the fontbakery message; the suggestion of adding a new subset is not the way to resolve missing codepoints, they should instead be added to a nam file already declared by the font.

[chrissimpkins]

Is there anything to do here? If not, ok to close?

[simoncozens]

Yes, I should add CJK fullwidth punctuation to the Mongolian subset in glyphsets and remove chinese-simplified from the subsets in METADATA.pb. I also want to clarify that fontbakery warning.

[simoncozens]

(I will do this after we've moved the glyphsets to the nam-files repo, or else it will probably get lost in the move.)

[EbenSorkin]

Probably for trade reasons. Does it also contain Cyrillic?

…

On Thu, Mar 28, 2024 at 10:07 AM Emma Marichal ***@***.***> wrote: Closed #7022 <#7022> as completed via #7472 <#7472>. — Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub <#7022 (comment)>, or unsubscribe <https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AAQUQXNVNUIOMTE325XME7LY2QIZHAVCNFSM6AAAAAA75CQRG6VHI2DSMVQWIX3LMV45UABCJFZXG5LFIV3GK3TUJZXXI2LGNFRWC5DJN5XDWMJSGI4DEMRWGYZDSNY> . You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.Message ID: ***@***.***>