You signed in with another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You signed out in another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You switched accounts on another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.Dismiss alert
--- Rationale ---
Google Fonts expects that fonts in its collection support at least the minimal
set of characters defined in the `GF-latin-core` glyph-set.
--- Rationale ---
A known licensing description must be provided in the NameID 14 (LICENSE
DESCRIPTION) entries of the name table.
The source of truth for this check (to determine which license is in use) is a
file placed side-by-side to your font project including the licensing terms.
Depending on the chosen license, one of the following string snippets is
expected to be found on the NameID 13 (LICENSE DESCRIPTION) entries of the name
table:
- "This Font Software is licensed under the SIL Open Font License, Version 1.1.
This license is available with a FAQ at: https://scripts.sil.org/OFL"
- "Licensed under the Apache License, Version 2.0"
- "Licensed under the Ubuntu Font Licence 1.0."
Currently accepted licenses are Apache or Open Font License.
For a small set of legacy families the Ubuntu Font License may be acceptable as
well.
When in doubt, please choose OFL for new font projects.
🔥 FAIL License file LICENSE.txt exists but NameID 13 (LICENSE DESCRIPTION) value on platform 3 (WINDOWS) is not specified for that. Value was: "This Font Software is licensed under the SIL Open Font License, Version 1.1. This license is available with a FAQ at: https://scripts.sil.org/OFL" Must be changed to "Licensed under the Apache License, Version 2.0" [code: wrong]
⚠ WARN Please consider using HTTPS URLs at name table entry [plat=3, enc=1, name=13] [code: http-in-description]
⚠ WARN For now we're still accepting http URLs, but you should consider using https instead.
[code: http]
⚠ WARN: License URL matches License text on name table?
--- Rationale ---
A known license URL must be provided in the NameID 14 (LICENSE INFO URL) entry
of the name table.
The source of truth for this check is the licensing text found on the NameID 13
entry (LICENSE DESCRIPTION).
The string snippets used for detecting licensing terms are:
- "This Font Software is licensed under the SIL Open Font License, Version 1.1.
This license is available with a FAQ at: https://scripts.sil.org/OFL"
- "Licensed under the Apache License, Version 2.0"
- "Licensed under the Ubuntu Font Licence 1.0."
Currently accepted licenses are Apache or Open Font License.
For a small set of legacy families the Ubuntu Font License may be acceptable as
well.
When in doubt, please choose OFL for new font projects.
⚠ WARN Please consider using HTTPS URLs at name table entry [plat=3, enc=1, name=13] [code: http-in-description]
⚠ WARN Please consider using HTTPS URLs at name table entry [plat=3, enc=1, name=13] [code: http-in-description]
⚠ WARN Please consider using HTTPS URLs at name table entry [plat=3, enc=1, name=13] [code: http-in-description]
⚠ WARN Please consider using HTTPS URLs at name table entry [plat=3, enc=1, name=14] [code: http-in-license-info]
⚠ WARN For now we're still accepting http URLs, but you should consider using https instead.
[code: http]
⚠ WARN: Check if each glyph has the recommended amount of contours.
--- Rationale ---
Visually QAing thousands of glyphs by hand is tiring. Most glyphs can only be
constructured in a handful of ways. This means a glyph's contour count will
only differ slightly amongst different fonts, e.g a 'g' could either be 2 or 3
contours, depending on whether its double story or single story.
However, a quotedbl should have 2 contours, unless the font belongs to a
display family.
This check currently does not cover variable fonts because there's plenty of
alternative ways of constructing glyphs with multiple outlines for each feature
in a VarFont. The expected contour count data for this check is currently
optimized for the typical construction of glyphs in static fonts.
⚠ WARN This check inspects the glyph outlines and detects the total number of contours in each of them. The expected values are infered from the typical ammounts of contours observed in a large collection of reference font families. The divergences listed below may simply indicate a significantly different design on some of your glyphs. On the other hand, some of these may flag actual bugs in the font such as glyphs mapped to an incorrect codepoint. Please consider reviewing the design and codepoint assignment of these to make sure they are correct.
The following glyphs do not have the recommended number of contours:
--- Rationale ---
Glyphs in the GDEF mark glyph class should be non-spacing.
Spacing glyphs in the GDEF mark glyph class may have incorrect anchor
positioning that was only intended for building composite glyphs during design.
⚠ WARN The following spacing glyphs may be in the GDEF mark glyph class by mistake:
dotreph and xx [code: spacing-mark-glyphs]
⚠ WARN: Check mark characters are in GDEF mark glyph class
--- Rationale ---
Mark characters should be in the GDEF mark glyph class.
⚠ WARN The following mark characters could be in the GDEF mark glyph class:
U+0D00, U+0D01, U+0D02, U+0D03, U+0D3B, U+0D3C, U+0D3E, U+0D3F, U+0D40, U+0D41, U+0D42, U+0D43, U+0D44, U+0D46, U+0D47, U+0D48, U+0D4A, U+0D4B, U+0D4C, U+0D57, U+0D62 and U+0D63 [code: mark-chars]
⚠ WARN: Check GDEF mark glyph class doesn't have characters that are not marks)
--- Rationale ---
Glyphs in the GDEF mark glyph class become non-spacing and may be repositioned
if they have mark anchors.
Only combining mark glyphs should be in that class. Any non-mark glyph must not
be in that class, in particular spacing glyphs.
⚠ WARN The following non-mark characters should not be in the GDEF mark glyph class:
U+0D4E [code: non-mark-chars]
--- Rationale ---
This test looks for consecutive line segments which have the same angle. This
normally happens if an outline point has been added by accident.
This test is not run for variable fonts, as they may legitimately have colinear
vectors.
⚠ WARN The following glyphs have colinear vectors:
--- Rationale ---
This test heuristically detects outline segments which form a particularly
small angle, indicative of an outline error. This may cause false positives in
cases such as extreme ink traps, so should be regarded as advisory and backed
up by manual inspection.
--- Rationale ---
This test detects line segments which are nearly, but not quite, exactly
horizontal or vertical. Sometimes such lines are created by design, but often
they are indicative of a design error.
This test is disabled for italic styles, which often contain nearly-upright
lines.
⚠ WARN The following glyphs have semi-vertical/semi-horizontal lines:
ch1ch1: L<<1334.0,112.0>--<1335.0,944.0>>
ch1ch1: L<<1335.0,-308.0>--<1334.0,0.0>>
ch1ch1u1: L<<1334.0,112.0>--<1335.0,944.0>>
ch1ch1u1: L<<1335.0,-308.0>--<1334.0,0.0>>
ch1ch1u2: L<<1334.0,112.0>--<1335.0,944.0>>
ch1ch1u2: L<<1335.0,-308.0>--<1334.0,0.0>>
endash: L<<100.0,404.0>--<101.0,524.0>>
endash: L<<892.0,524.0>--<891.0,404.0>>
g: L<<1072.0,945.0>--<1071.0,40.0>>
gcircumflex: L<<1072.0,945.0>--<1071.0,40.0>> and 106 more. [code: found-semi-vertical]
[8] Gayathri-Regular.ttf🔥 FAIL: Check `Google Fonts Latin Core` glyph coverage.
--- Rationale ---
Google Fonts expects that fonts in its collection support at least the minimal
set of characters defined in the `GF-latin-core` glyph-set.
--- Rationale ---
A known licensing description must be provided in the NameID 14 (LICENSE
DESCRIPTION) entries of the name table.
The source of truth for this check (to determine which license is in use) is a
file placed side-by-side to your font project including the licensing terms.
Depending on the chosen license, one of the following string snippets is
expected to be found on the NameID 13 (LICENSE DESCRIPTION) entries of the name
table:
- "This Font Software is licensed under the SIL Open Font License, Version 1.1.
This license is available with a FAQ at: https://scripts.sil.org/OFL"
- "Licensed under the Apache License, Version 2.0"
- "Licensed under the Ubuntu Font Licence 1.0."
Currently accepted licenses are Apache or Open Font License.
For a small set of legacy families the Ubuntu Font License may be acceptable as
well.
When in doubt, please choose OFL for new font projects.
🔥 FAIL License file LICENSE.txt exists but NameID 13 (LICENSE DESCRIPTION) value on platform 3 (WINDOWS) is not specified for that. Value was: "This Font Software is licensed under the SIL Open Font License, Version 1.1. This license is available with a FAQ at: https://scripts.sil.org/OFL" Must be changed to "Licensed under the Apache License, Version 2.0" [code: wrong]
⚠ WARN Please consider using HTTPS URLs at name table entry [plat=3, enc=1, name=13] [code: http-in-description]
⚠ WARN For now we're still accepting http URLs, but you should consider using https instead.
[code: http]
⚠ WARN: License URL matches License text on name table?
--- Rationale ---
A known license URL must be provided in the NameID 14 (LICENSE INFO URL) entry
of the name table.
The source of truth for this check is the licensing text found on the NameID 13
entry (LICENSE DESCRIPTION).
The string snippets used for detecting licensing terms are:
- "This Font Software is licensed under the SIL Open Font License, Version 1.1.
This license is available with a FAQ at: https://scripts.sil.org/OFL"
- "Licensed under the Apache License, Version 2.0"
- "Licensed under the Ubuntu Font Licence 1.0."
Currently accepted licenses are Apache or Open Font License.
For a small set of legacy families the Ubuntu Font License may be acceptable as
well.
When in doubt, please choose OFL for new font projects.
⚠ WARN Please consider using HTTPS URLs at name table entry [plat=3, enc=1, name=13] [code: http-in-description]
⚠ WARN Please consider using HTTPS URLs at name table entry [plat=3, enc=1, name=13] [code: http-in-description]
⚠ WARN Please consider using HTTPS URLs at name table entry [plat=3, enc=1, name=13] [code: http-in-description]
⚠ WARN Please consider using HTTPS URLs at name table entry [plat=3, enc=1, name=14] [code: http-in-license-info]
⚠ WARN For now we're still accepting http URLs, but you should consider using https instead.
[code: http]
⚠ WARN: Check if each glyph has the recommended amount of contours.
--- Rationale ---
Visually QAing thousands of glyphs by hand is tiring. Most glyphs can only be
constructured in a handful of ways. This means a glyph's contour count will
only differ slightly amongst different fonts, e.g a 'g' could either be 2 or 3
contours, depending on whether its double story or single story.
However, a quotedbl should have 2 contours, unless the font belongs to a
display family.
This check currently does not cover variable fonts because there's plenty of
alternative ways of constructing glyphs with multiple outlines for each feature
in a VarFont. The expected contour count data for this check is currently
optimized for the typical construction of glyphs in static fonts.
⚠ WARN This check inspects the glyph outlines and detects the total number of contours in each of them. The expected values are infered from the typical ammounts of contours observed in a large collection of reference font families. The divergences listed below may simply indicate a significantly different design on some of your glyphs. On the other hand, some of these may flag actual bugs in the font such as glyphs mapped to an incorrect codepoint. Please consider reviewing the design and codepoint assignment of these to make sure they are correct.
The following glyphs do not have the recommended number of contours:
--- Rationale ---
Glyphs in the GDEF mark glyph class should be non-spacing.
Spacing glyphs in the GDEF mark glyph class may have incorrect anchor
positioning that was only intended for building composite glyphs during design.
⚠ WARN The following spacing glyphs may be in the GDEF mark glyph class by mistake:
dotreph and xx [code: spacing-mark-glyphs]
⚠ WARN: Check mark characters are in GDEF mark glyph class
--- Rationale ---
Mark characters should be in the GDEF mark glyph class.
⚠ WARN The following mark characters could be in the GDEF mark glyph class:
U+0D00, U+0D01, U+0D02, U+0D03, U+0D3B, U+0D3C, U+0D3E, U+0D3F, U+0D40, U+0D41, U+0D42, U+0D43, U+0D44, U+0D46, U+0D47, U+0D48, U+0D4A, U+0D4B, U+0D4C, U+0D57, U+0D62 and U+0D63 [code: mark-chars]
⚠ WARN: Check GDEF mark glyph class doesn't have characters that are not marks)
--- Rationale ---
Glyphs in the GDEF mark glyph class become non-spacing and may be repositioned
if they have mark anchors.
Only combining mark glyphs should be in that class. Any non-mark glyph must not
be in that class, in particular spacing glyphs.
⚠ WARN The following non-mark characters should not be in the GDEF mark glyph class:
U+0D4E [code: non-mark-chars]
⚠ WARN: Do outlines contain any semi-vertical or semi-horizontal lines?
--- Rationale ---
This test detects line segments which are nearly, but not quite, exactly
horizontal or vertical. Sometimes such lines are created by design, but often
they are indicative of a design error.
This test is disabled for italic styles, which often contain nearly-upright
lines.
⚠ WARN The following glyphs have semi-vertical/semi-horizontal lines:
_k2: L<<815.0,-562.0>--<814.0,-66.0>>
_k2: L<<937.0,-66.0>--<938.0,-592.0>>
endash: L<<100.0,404.0>--<101.0,524.0>>
endash: L<<892.0,524.0>--<891.0,404.0>>
h1m1r1: L<<1790.0,0.0>--<1791.0,165.0>>
k1shr1: L<<2636.0,0.0>--<2637.0,165.0>>
k2r1: L<<1438.0,2.0>--<1439.0,167.0>>
k4r1: L<<2073.0,-1.0>--<2074.0,164.0>>
k4r2: L<<2073.0,0.0>--<2074.0,165.0>>
lh: L<<835.0,-42.0>--<377.0,-41.0>> and 61 more. [code: found-semi-vertical]
[10] Gayathri-Thin.ttf🔥 FAIL: Check `Google Fonts Latin Core` glyph coverage.
--- Rationale ---
Google Fonts expects that fonts in its collection support at least the minimal
set of characters defined in the `GF-latin-core` glyph-set.
--- Rationale ---
A known licensing description must be provided in the NameID 14 (LICENSE
DESCRIPTION) entries of the name table.
The source of truth for this check (to determine which license is in use) is a
file placed side-by-side to your font project including the licensing terms.
Depending on the chosen license, one of the following string snippets is
expected to be found on the NameID 13 (LICENSE DESCRIPTION) entries of the name
table:
- "This Font Software is licensed under the SIL Open Font License, Version 1.1.
This license is available with a FAQ at: https://scripts.sil.org/OFL"
- "Licensed under the Apache License, Version 2.0"
- "Licensed under the Ubuntu Font Licence 1.0."
Currently accepted licenses are Apache or Open Font License.
For a small set of legacy families the Ubuntu Font License may be acceptable as
well.
When in doubt, please choose OFL for new font projects.
🔥 FAIL License file LICENSE.txt exists but NameID 13 (LICENSE DESCRIPTION) value on platform 3 (WINDOWS) is not specified for that. Value was: "This Font Software is licensed under the SIL Open Font License, Version 1.1. This license is available with a FAQ at: https://scripts.sil.org/OFL" Must be changed to "Licensed under the Apache License, Version 2.0" [code: wrong]
⚠ WARN Please consider using HTTPS URLs at name table entry [plat=3, enc=1, name=13] [code: http-in-description]
⚠ WARN For now we're still accepting http URLs, but you should consider using https instead.
[code: http]
⚠ WARN: License URL matches License text on name table?
--- Rationale ---
A known license URL must be provided in the NameID 14 (LICENSE INFO URL) entry
of the name table.
The source of truth for this check is the licensing text found on the NameID 13
entry (LICENSE DESCRIPTION).
The string snippets used for detecting licensing terms are:
- "This Font Software is licensed under the SIL Open Font License, Version 1.1.
This license is available with a FAQ at: https://scripts.sil.org/OFL"
- "Licensed under the Apache License, Version 2.0"
- "Licensed under the Ubuntu Font Licence 1.0."
Currently accepted licenses are Apache or Open Font License.
For a small set of legacy families the Ubuntu Font License may be acceptable as
well.
When in doubt, please choose OFL for new font projects.
⚠ WARN Please consider using HTTPS URLs at name table entry [plat=3, enc=1, name=13] [code: http-in-description]
⚠ WARN Please consider using HTTPS URLs at name table entry [plat=3, enc=1, name=13] [code: http-in-description]
⚠ WARN Please consider using HTTPS URLs at name table entry [plat=3, enc=1, name=13] [code: http-in-description]
⚠ WARN Please consider using HTTPS URLs at name table entry [plat=3, enc=1, name=14] [code: http-in-license-info]
⚠ WARN For now we're still accepting http URLs, but you should consider using https instead.
[code: http]
⚠ WARN: Check if each glyph has the recommended amount of contours.
--- Rationale ---
Visually QAing thousands of glyphs by hand is tiring. Most glyphs can only be
constructured in a handful of ways. This means a glyph's contour count will
only differ slightly amongst different fonts, e.g a 'g' could either be 2 or 3
contours, depending on whether its double story or single story.
However, a quotedbl should have 2 contours, unless the font belongs to a
display family.
This check currently does not cover variable fonts because there's plenty of
alternative ways of constructing glyphs with multiple outlines for each feature
in a VarFont. The expected contour count data for this check is currently
optimized for the typical construction of glyphs in static fonts.
⚠ WARN This check inspects the glyph outlines and detects the total number of contours in each of them. The expected values are infered from the typical ammounts of contours observed in a large collection of reference font families. The divergences listed below may simply indicate a significantly different design on some of your glyphs. On the other hand, some of these may flag actual bugs in the font such as glyphs mapped to an incorrect codepoint. Please consider reviewing the design and codepoint assignment of these to make sure they are correct.
The following glyphs do not have the recommended number of contours:
--- Rationale ---
Glyphs in the GDEF mark glyph class should be non-spacing.
Spacing glyphs in the GDEF mark glyph class may have incorrect anchor
positioning that was only intended for building composite glyphs during design.
⚠ WARN The following spacing glyphs may be in the GDEF mark glyph class by mistake:
dotreph and xx [code: spacing-mark-glyphs]
⚠ WARN: Check mark characters are in GDEF mark glyph class
--- Rationale ---
Mark characters should be in the GDEF mark glyph class.
⚠ WARN The following mark characters could be in the GDEF mark glyph class:
U+0D00, U+0D01, U+0D02, U+0D03, U+0D3B, U+0D3C, U+0D3E, U+0D3F, U+0D40, U+0D41, U+0D42, U+0D43, U+0D44, U+0D46, U+0D47, U+0D48, U+0D4A, U+0D4B, U+0D4C, U+0D57, U+0D62 and U+0D63 [code: mark-chars]
⚠ WARN: Check GDEF mark glyph class doesn't have characters that are not marks)
--- Rationale ---
Glyphs in the GDEF mark glyph class become non-spacing and may be repositioned
if they have mark anchors.
Only combining mark glyphs should be in that class. Any non-mark glyph must not
be in that class, in particular spacing glyphs.
⚠ WARN The following non-mark characters should not be in the GDEF mark glyph class:
U+0D4E [code: non-mark-chars]
--- Rationale ---
This test looks for consecutive line segments which have the same angle. This
normally happens if an outline point has been added by accident.
This test is not run for variable fonts, as they may legitimately have colinear
vectors.
⚠ WARN The following glyphs have colinear vectors:
--- Rationale ---
This test heuristically detects outline segments which form a particularly
small angle, indicative of an outline error. This may cause false positives in
cases such as extreme ink traps, so should be regarded as advisory and backed
up by manual inspection.
k3l3u1: B<<666.0,-110.5>-<608.0,-97.0>-<564.0,-93.0>>/B<<564.0,-93.0>-<679.0,-133.0>-<679.0,-285.0>> = 13.984579118075901 and 36 more. [code: found-jaggy-segments]
⚠ WARN: Do outlines contain any semi-vertical or semi-horizontal lines?
--- Rationale ---
This test detects line segments which are nearly, but not quite, exactly
horizontal or vertical. Sometimes such lines are created by design, but often
they are indicative of a design error.
This test is disabled for italic styles, which often contain nearly-upright
lines.
⚠ WARN The following glyphs have semi-vertical/semi-horizontal lines:
endash: L<<100.0,404.0>--<101.0,524.0>>
endash: L<<892.0,524.0>--<891.0,404.0>>
k1th1u2: L<<1194.0,470.0>--<653.0,471.0>>
mukkaal: L<<922.0,11.0>--<923.0,414.0>>
mukkaal: L<<923.0,414.0>--<922.0,615.0>>
nhcil: L<<922.0,11.0>--<923.0,413.0>>
nhcil: L<<923.0,413.0>--<922.0,614.0>>
s1th2: L<<3049.0,71.0>--<3050.0,603.0>>
s1th2r1: L<<3049.0,71.0>--<3050.0,603.0>>
s1th2u1: L<<3049.0,71.0>--<3050.0,603.0>> and 60 more. [code: found-semi-vertical]
Summary
💔 ERROR
🔥 FAIL
⚠ WARN
💤 SKIP
ℹ INFO
🍞 PASS
🔎 DEBUG
0
6
22
268
22
237
0
0%
1%
4%
48%
4%
43%
0%
Note: The following loglevels were omitted in this report:
SKIP
INFO
PASS
DEBUG
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered:
Fontbakery report
Fontbakery version: 0.7.34
[10] Gayathri-Bold.ttf
🔥 FAIL: Check `Google Fonts Latin Core` glyph coverage.
🔥 FAIL: Check copyright namerecords match license file.
[code: http]
⚠ WARN: License URL matches License text on name table?
[code: http]
⚠ WARN: Check if each glyph has the recommended amount of contours.
The following glyphs do not have the recommended number of contours:
Glyph name: uni00AD Contours detected: 0 Expected: 1
Glyph name: ZWNJ Contours detected: 1 Expected: 0
Glyph name: ZWJ Contours detected: 2 Expected: 0
Glyph name: uni25CC Contours detected: 8 Expected: 16 or 12
Glyph name: rupee Contours detected: 1 Expected: 3
Glyph name: uni00AD Contours detected: 0 Expected: 1
Glyph name: uni25CC Contours detected: 8 Expected: 16 or 12 [code: contour-count]
⚠ WARN: Check mark characters are in GDEF mark glyph class)
dotreph and xx [code: spacing-mark-glyphs]
⚠ WARN: Check mark characters are in GDEF mark glyph class
U+0D00, U+0D01, U+0D02, U+0D03, U+0D3B, U+0D3C, U+0D3E, U+0D3F, U+0D40, U+0D41, U+0D42, U+0D43, U+0D44, U+0D46, U+0D47, U+0D48, U+0D4A, U+0D4B, U+0D4C, U+0D57, U+0D62 and U+0D63 [code: mark-chars]
⚠ WARN: Check GDEF mark glyph class doesn't have characters that are not marks)
U+0D4E [code: non-mark-chars]
⚠ WARN: Do any segments have colinear vectors?
⚠ WARN: Do outlines contain any jaggy segments?
⚠ WARN: Do outlines contain any semi-vertical or semi-horizontal lines?
[8] Gayathri-Regular.ttf
🔥 FAIL: Check `Google Fonts Latin Core` glyph coverage.
🔥 FAIL: Check copyright namerecords match license file.
[code: http]
⚠ WARN: License URL matches License text on name table?
[code: http]
⚠ WARN: Check if each glyph has the recommended amount of contours.
The following glyphs do not have the recommended number of contours:
Glyph name: uni00AD Contours detected: 0 Expected: 1
Glyph name: ZWNJ Contours detected: 1 Expected: 0
Glyph name: ZWJ Contours detected: 2 Expected: 0
Glyph name: uni25CC Contours detected: 8 Expected: 16 or 12
Glyph name: rupee Contours detected: 1 Expected: 3
Glyph name: uni00AD Contours detected: 0 Expected: 1
Glyph name: uni25CC Contours detected: 8 Expected: 16 or 12 [code: contour-count]
⚠ WARN: Check mark characters are in GDEF mark glyph class)
dotreph and xx [code: spacing-mark-glyphs]
⚠ WARN: Check mark characters are in GDEF mark glyph class
U+0D00, U+0D01, U+0D02, U+0D03, U+0D3B, U+0D3C, U+0D3E, U+0D3F, U+0D40, U+0D41, U+0D42, U+0D43, U+0D44, U+0D46, U+0D47, U+0D48, U+0D4A, U+0D4B, U+0D4C, U+0D57, U+0D62 and U+0D63 [code: mark-chars]
⚠ WARN: Check GDEF mark glyph class doesn't have characters that are not marks)
U+0D4E [code: non-mark-chars]
⚠ WARN: Do outlines contain any semi-vertical or semi-horizontal lines?
[10] Gayathri-Thin.ttf
🔥 FAIL: Check `Google Fonts Latin Core` glyph coverage.
🔥 FAIL: Check copyright namerecords match license file.
[code: http]
⚠ WARN: License URL matches License text on name table?
[code: http]
⚠ WARN: Check if each glyph has the recommended amount of contours.
The following glyphs do not have the recommended number of contours:
Glyph name: uni00AD Contours detected: 0 Expected: 1
Glyph name: ZWNJ Contours detected: 1 Expected: 0
Glyph name: ZWJ Contours detected: 2 Expected: 0
Glyph name: uni25CC Contours detected: 8 Expected: 16 or 12
Glyph name: rupee Contours detected: 1 Expected: 3
Glyph name: uni00AD Contours detected: 0 Expected: 1
Glyph name: uni25CC Contours detected: 8 Expected: 16 or 12 [code: contour-count]
⚠ WARN: Check mark characters are in GDEF mark glyph class)
dotreph and xx [code: spacing-mark-glyphs]
⚠ WARN: Check mark characters are in GDEF mark glyph class
U+0D00, U+0D01, U+0D02, U+0D03, U+0D3B, U+0D3C, U+0D3E, U+0D3F, U+0D40, U+0D41, U+0D42, U+0D43, U+0D44, U+0D46, U+0D47, U+0D48, U+0D4A, U+0D4B, U+0D4C, U+0D57, U+0D62 and U+0D63 [code: mark-chars]
⚠ WARN: Check GDEF mark glyph class doesn't have characters that are not marks)
U+0D4E [code: non-mark-chars]
⚠ WARN: Do any segments have colinear vectors?
⚠ WARN: Do outlines contain any jaggy segments?
⚠ WARN: Do outlines contain any semi-vertical or semi-horizontal lines?
Summary
Note: The following loglevels were omitted in this report:
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: