Dotted circle

[RosaWagner]

To reflect on mark attachment requirements in Docs
cc @vv-monsalve

Will update db and lists when confirmed.

[m4rc1e]

I haven't really encountered the dotted circle in Latin fonts so I'm wondering if it's overkill to include it in Latin Plus?

[vv-monsalve]

I haven't really encountered the dotted circle in Latin fonts so I'm wondering if it's overkill to include it in Latin Plus?

But still, we are receiving the WARN. Otherwise, it could end up like one of the always ignored Warns

⚠ WARN: Ensure dotted circle glyph is present and can attach marks. (com.google.fonts/check/dotted_circle)
⚠ WARN No dotted circle glyph present [code: missing-dotted-circle]

[vv-monsalve]

I wonder now if this filter to Add dotted circle should be included by default when using Builder.

[RosaWagner]

Thanks Viviana for bringing up the check, it's the origin of the problem imo. Maybe we should re-read that conversation that got opened and fixed in only 2 days: fonttools/fontbakery#3600 and see if we agree with it?

I personally agree that it is good professional practice from the moment a font has combining marks, that is why I suggest it in Latin Plus —which is an optional/recommended glyph set. Pros for having it in Plus would be: gen-html "glyphset" specimen generation displaying combining marks attached to the dotted circle instead of alone in the case. It would make it easier to review the anchors present in the fonts + the mark position.

Does it worth the trouble? If not I would only add it to the phonetic sets (where it is needed).

If we think that it would actually be good to completely go along with that FB, and make it a convention to all designers; then let's make the builder generating it by default.

I personally think the check should be skipped for all scripts expect the one where it is really needed.

[vv-monsalve]

Does it worth the trouble? If not I would only add it to the phonetic sets (where it is needed).

If it would be too complicated at least the second option would be ok.

If we think that it would actually be good to completely go along with that FB, and make it a convention to all designers; then let's make the builder generating it by default.

Yes, the filter is already there

I personally think the check should be skipped for all scripts expect the one where it is really needed.

But even in those cases it is being skipped google/fonts#4850 (comment). And again, the filter seems to be already at hand to solve this.