U+AB66, U+AB67, U+10788, and U+107AD have inconsistent retroflex hooks

[dscorbett]

Font

NotoSerif-Regular.otf

Where the font came from, and when

Site: https://github.com/notofonts/latin-greek-cyrillic/releases/tag/NotoSerif-v2.011
Date: 2023-04-17

Font version

Version 2.011

Issue

The retroflex hooks of U+AB66, U+AB67, U+10788, and U+107AD are inconsistent with the design of other retroflex hooks in this font, especially U+0282 and U+0290. Neither design is wrong, but it should be consistent one way or the other.

Character data

ʂʐꭦꭧ𐞈𐞭
U+0282 LATIN SMALL LETTER S WITH HOOK
U+0290 LATIN SMALL LETTER Z WITH RETROFLEX HOOK
U+AB66 LATIN SMALL LETTER DZ DIGRAPH WITH RETROFLEX HOOK
U+AB67 LATIN SMALL LETTER TS DIGRAPH WITH RETROFLEX HOOK
U+10788 MODIFIER LETTER SMALL DZ DIGRAPH WITH RETROFLEX HOOK
U+107AD MODIFIER LETTER SMALL TS DIGRAPH WITH RETROFLEX HOOK

Screenshots

[Mercury13]

As closed #423 says…

1. HOOKs are also inconsistent.
2. There’s a fullwidth RETROFLEX HOOK, and it’s inconsistent with small one.

[Mercury13]

My IMHO: s, z is good. dz, ts is bad.