Please Write down your description in English. The maintainer may not understand Chinese.

He said that you should create another variant which follows the glyph shapes in Kangxi Dictionary (康熙字典), which is closer to Korean variant, instead of the Taiwan standard.

The glyphs that we included were constrained in a small number of ways. First, the representative glyphs as used in the national standards of each region are those that are preferred, and it is not really a matter of correctness (which can be subjective, and can change over time) but rather one of following current conventions. Second, due to the 64K glyph limit, we needed to limit the scope of the supported standards, which was also practical. For Simplified Chinese, GB 18030 is a requirement and means URO and Extension A support. We also found that with approximately 200 additional glyphs we could support China's latest list of 8,105 hanzi, so we supported that. For Traditional Chinese, the scope is Big Five and Hong Kong SCS. The CNS 11643 planes outside of Planes 1 and 2 are thus not supported, in terms of having appropriate glyphs for Traditional Chinese. In other words, if a glyph does not look appropriate for Traditional Chinese, it is best to first check whether it is outside the scope of Big Five (CNS 11643 Planes 1 and 2) or Hong Kong SCS.

Not really accurate translation:

Please make Traditional Chinese glyphs really traditional

In my opinion, the glyphs for Traditional Chinese has big problems. According to the examples, the glyphs are designed mostly according to the standards of Taiwan's Ministry of Education.
However, there are a lot of areas where Traditional Chinese characters are used (e.g. HK, Macau (did I misspell it?) and among Chinese overseas). What's more, the MOE standard is not widely used in Taiwan publishing in the past and now.
The glyph standard that most people use is still the one used in Kangxi Dictionary, which people call The old typeface or Kangxi Dictionary Glyphs, which represents fonts that uses the glyphs shapes in the Original Kangxi Dictionary published by 同文書局. This shape of strokes and characters is more reasonable, as well as more beautiful.
On the other hand, MOE's standard follows the style in Kai(Handwritten)(Ref-1), which changes the styles of printing typefaces of Ming(Song) violently and unreasonablely. Lots of people are against this.
I sincerely thank Adobe's contribution of making such a nice font Open Source, but I really hope that Adobe can use the KX Dict glyphs instead of the 'malformed' MOD glyph standard.

I am not against the Taiwanese who may want to use the MOE standard. But please at least make a really Traditional one, and move the existing one to Taiwan, instead of making everyone use the Taiwan MOE one.

Some random Googling...

Ref 1.0:
Making printed glyphs look closer to those handwritten Kai is often called “宋体楷化”, literally "Kai-lizing Ming(Song)."
~~Err, everyone knows this is not serif font, so let's say 'handwritizing printed typefaces'~~~

This is often discussed, especially on a Q&A SNS site called zhihu in China:
www.zhihu.com/question/20770206

Ref 1.1:
http://blog.justfont.com/2013/05/lets-talk-about-kanghsi/

Ref 1.2:
http://www.douban.com/group/topic/38841615/#!/i!/ckDefault

新字型標準有甚麼問題？What's the problem of the new MOE standard?

• http://founder.acgvlyric.org/iu/doku.php/%E8%AA%AA%E6%96%87:%E9%8C%AF%E5%AD%97%E8%88%87%E5%82%B3%E7%B5%B1%E5%AD%97%E5%BD%A2
• http://founder.acgvlyric.org/iu/doku.php/%E8%AA%AA%E6%96%87:%E5%AE%8B%E9%AB%94%E6%BB%BE%E8%9B%8B_%E9%82%84%E6%88%91%E7%B4%B0%E6%98%8E
• http://founder.acgvlyric.org/iu/doku.php/%E8%AA%AA%E6%96%87:unicode%E6%91%A7%E6%AE%98%E6%AD%A3%E9%AB%94%E5%AD%97
• http://founder.acgvlyric.org/iu/doku.php/%E8%AA%AA%E6%96%87:%E4%B8%8D%E7%9F%A5%E4%B8%B9%E9%9D%92_%E6%9E%89%E8%AB%87%E6%BC%A2%E5%AD%97
• http://www.ideographer.com/articles/article.php?aid=67
• http://www.ideographer.com/articles/article.php?aid=68
• http://www.ideographer.com/articles/article.php?aid=69
• http://www.ideographer.com/articles/article.php?aid=70
• http://www.ideographer.com/articles/article.php?aid=17

Ref 1.3:
zh.wikipedia.org/wiki/黑體-繁#字形變遷

@kenlunde:
The reporter is talking about glyph standard instead of character set coverage... However personally I totally understand why 國字標準字體 was employed as the glyph standard.

I guess the original poster's idea is to request a "kangxi variant" of traditional Chinese besides "MOE Taiwan" variant which now Source Han Sans provides, because some people who use traditional Chinese in other regions (for example, Hong Kong, overseas Chinese...) do not follow Taiwan's standard.

So the main problem here is that is it possible to have a new "kangxi variant" for traditional Chinese? Will there be any chance for community to create such a variant via some help from Adobe or Google if it is not going to happen in official plan?

I think this would be some really hard work for the community, since a great number of structures will be changed to fit the kanghsi one.

Hmm, So it would be 思源黑体 从正/Source Han Sans Kanghsi?

Well, great news to those who has some knowledge on Chinese characters and their sources, that would be the real “思源”……

Please KEEP the Traditional Chinese Glyphs as current (Taiwan Gov. Standard, aka. CNS 11643 ).
This glyph set is the same as what people likely to write in daily life (for people lives in Taiwan).
(Thanks to LiangHai for his suggestions on this comment.)

Meanwhile, I don't think there's a referrable standard of what SyaoranHinata want... Maybe HongKong authorities? Whatever, HongKong standard could be a little bit considerable if treated as a branch standard of Traditional Chinese Glyphs.

As what LiangHai said in following comments:
「The reason Source Han Sans TWHK must follow it is: CNS 11643 is the national standard in Taiwan — although it's not mandatory.」

The current Traditional Noto Sans should only be treated as TAIWAN version.

======Chinese Version======
請保留國字標準字體（CNS 11643，台灣當局現行標準），
因為那更趨向於台灣人平時在寫的筆劃、且該標準動手寫的話也是迄今所有漢字標準當中最順手的。
同時，我不認為版大/PO主/樓主想要的那種字體方案有無固定規範可考…或許是香港標準也說不定。
如果可行的話，倒是可以給Noto Sans的正體中文字體單獨做一個香港繁體中文的分支。
我不認為舊字型被排擠是好事…但如果要讓舊字型徹底取代國字標準字體、讓大家沒有國字標準字體可用的話，我只能說髒話了。

（某種程度上而言，我認為華文社做出這種國字標準字體真的很良心，
這是我見過的最讚的國字標準黑體套裝，相信明天會更好。）

From @lianghai 's Twitter:
「不做开源项目的理由：免得 https://t.co/fkG3Tuv6NI 这种＊＊＊censored adjectives＊＊＊找上门。旧字形（或至少是非「国字标准字体」的繁体中文字形）很重要，但不需要你这种下三滥的革命开炮方式。Adobe 没有做旧字形，是因为根本就没有精确的标准可循、也没有地区强制要求它。」

This glyph set is the same as what people writes in daily life.

No. 國字標準字體 is hardly what people write every day. The reason Source Han Sans TWHK must follow it is: 國字標準字體 is the national standard in Taiwan — although it's not mandatory.

You should report the problem to standardization bodies but this font, if you consider to following the standard has problem. Actually, it's really glad across the community that a long-waiting standardized glyphs Traditional Chinese open source font had been birth.

@irvin the standardization process of Chinese characters in Taiwan has been famously controversial. The Taiwanese government has long taken a very strong stance against the revivial of KangXi radical styles.

I have discovered two fonts derived from Source Han series, and the design is very suitable to what you need.
https://github.com/ButTaiwan/genyog-font
https://github.com/ButTaiwan/genyo-font

I have discovered two fonts derived from Source Han series, and the design is very suitable to what you need.
https://github.com/ButTaiwan/genyog-font
https://github.com/ButTaiwan/genyo-font

However, they are useless unless they were supported by the official, as a normal user cannot change the system font without rooting the phone, but we will lose the warrant if we root it. Besides, the cloud font of Google or Adobe only provides the official version, that means we are still forced to use MOE fonts, our right of choice is disappeared.

In the academic field of Chinese philology, every scholar knows that the Glyph list of Kangxi is a set of standard, it perfectly fits the definition of "standard".

A software engineer, who knows nothing about philology, should apologize for claiming that Kangxi is not a standard, which is completely contrary to fact of academic.

@aikahiiragi Stop throwing your loaded language here.
If you want to make it into a standard, you are supposed to seek help from people work in W3C.
Besides, the engineer you want to blame is not working for Adobe (incl. this project) anymore since September 2019.

I believe @aikahiiragi was referring to @RJHsiao in response to his following remark:

I Have to say, 康熙字典"Kangxi Dictionary" and 大漢和”The Morohashi dictionary/The Dai Kan-Wa Jiten” are YOUR standard, NOT the REAL standard. In fact, no one said they are standard BUT YOU.

And not referring @kenlunde, who has expressed his understanding for historical significance for the Kangxi glyph forms in multiple venues.

@aikahiiragi Stop throwing your loaded language here.

In response, I'd like to draw your, and Adobe's, attention to the following comments:

I Have to say, 康熙字典"Kangxi Dictionary" and 大漢和”The Morohashi dictionary/The Dai Kan-Wa Jiten” are YOUR standard, NOT the REAL standard. In fact, no one said they are standard BUT YOU.

So I said that they are @SyaoranHinata's standard but not the real standard. Don't you agree me?

I think he just want someone can develop a font that following his wish and have opportunity to become standard, but why the developers in Adobe and Google have to work for his wish?

I believe @RJHsiao's initial accusations were very loaded and very disrespectful to other users of Traditional Chinese. Taiwan is not the sole user of Traditional Chinese, and peddling that other preferred and well-established orthographies are someone's own standards seems to be a gaslighting take.

@ShikiSuen's additional comment here also used inflammatory language:

@RJHsiao 嗆你說那是你的標準，
自然是因為他看你這樣用驚嘆號脾氣暴躁、導致他不屑理解你那標準是三小。
你這樣打雞血的態度不會幫你解決任何問題，真的。

translated as follows:

@RJHsiao yelled at you saying it's your own standard,
is naturally because he saw you using an exclamation mark, showing your temper, leading him not to understanding what the fuck(^1) your standard is about
this kind of "blood coming out of eyes" attitude will not help you solve any problem, I mean it.

^1 三小 literally translates to "what sperm"

Since this thread is going nowhere, I hereby request Adobe to lock this thread and remove the abusive comments.

@ultrasparky I was advised to contact you.

看到這 issue 又被拉出來討論了，我還是簡單述說一下我的想法。
請原諒我只用中文打出來，因為我想大部分在這邊討論爭執的人都是懂中文、對中文字體設計有一定想法的人。
而且我的英文其實不好，這篇要打英文應該就會打到明天白天了吧...

首先，我要先說我先前所提到的標準，就是像 W3C、ISO、IEEE、JIS 等這些由有公信力的組織、政府機構「白紙黑字」明文制訂的標準，而康熙字典體就算在學術界上被認為是「有權威性的字書之字形寫法標準」，但在被真正訂為標準之前，頂多就是一個非常有權威的字形寫法。
況且字形寫法本來就會隨時代變化，字體的設計也會隨目的的不同而做調整，要讓某個寫法被視為最正確的寫法並訂為標準我是覺得不現實且沒意義。

Adobe 與 Google 為了他們的目的去合作設計出思源黑體並開源出來本來就是一件很好的事情，這點相信大家都認同。
但畢竟這兩家公司本就不是在做慈善事業，他設計這套字體本來也只是要完成他們的目標，
因次如果是有些 bug 要調整的提出來沒什麼問題，但押著要他們大幅修正去往一個根本就不是標準的「權威性的寫法」去靠攏我覺得大可不必。就算康熙字典體的寫法多麼具有權威性，也是有這個字體要達成的目的，且這個目的不一定能跟 Adobe 與 Google 他們的目的毫不相衝，且就算真的毫不相衝， Adobe 與 Google 也沒必要特地再花費精力去迎合部分人的「提倡」。若真的覺得這個提倡可以做，那大概也是另外出一套字體就好了，沒必要把原本辛勤的工作成果覆蓋過去。

就如我先前就說的，字體是開源的，有人有什麼自己的需求就 Fork 去改，不會有人阻撓，而現實上就有不少這樣的專案出來，那有些人還在爭什麼呢？如果是因為沒有能力的話，那應該要用合理的理由、理性的態度去說服人家幫你達成你的願望，而不是用否定他人工作成果的方式。

最後要聲明，我其實一點也不 care 思源黑體的寫法有沒有/要不要參照台灣教育部的標準，我想說的就是思源黑體已經被設計出來了，而且看起來是有達成設計師及公司所規劃的目標了。字寫出來就是要傳遞消息及達成寫字的人所期望的目標，設計字體也是，字體寫得「正確」與否是否是那麼重要的事情？一些字體為了美觀、辨識度及其設計的目的而對字的寫法、架構作調整，而不完全遵照台灣教育局的標準或是學術界的「標準」真的是很嚴重的問題？或是某些字以台灣教育局的標準來設計是必須大聲撻伐的事情？
由一個作為單純的字體使用者，沒有參與過字體的設計與開發的我來看，只會覺得有些人爭論的點真的有意義嗎？其實只是某種成見吧？

寫到這邊，覺得已經脫離「簡單述說」的範疇了，
就跟有人一開始只是訴求按地區拆分結果演變成拿一個權威性的寫法去覆蓋一個已經完成的工作成果還蠻像的。

最後的最後，再來吐槽一下：

1. 有人說普通用戶不 Root 手機就不能改字體，Google 不提供支援就等於失去選擇，那我看到一堆不會 Root 手機的使用者拿著沒 Root 卻以娃娃體作為顯示字體的手機又是怎麼一回事呢？
2. 這 Issue 開到現在已經6年了，有心要做一套基於康熙字典體的思源黑體的話不是早就完成了？我沒參加過字體開發，還請有實際經驗的先輩解惑一下

標準有兩款，de facto和de jure。事實標準和法定標準。不是只有政府或官方組織規定的法定標準才是標準。

至於手機字體的問題，三星等一部分手機廠商有官方字體商店，可供用戶購買Monotype等廠商發售的字體。娃娃體是其中一種可供選擇的字體。

至於你說私人開發基於康熙字典體的思源黑體，網絡上其實已經存在，但由於未獲廠商官方支援而缺乏互換性。

If you define standard as being promulgated by a particular government or international entity then Kangxi forms are indeed not promulgated by any modern government. But that is clearly a very narrow view, considering that Japan falls back to Kangxi form outside of Jōyō kanji and Korean mostly uses Kangxi form. Also, Kangxi form is still very widespread in Taiwan, Hong Kong and Macau, especially in commercially printed articles.

就算康熙字典體的寫法多麼具有權威性，也是有這個字體要達成的目的，且這個目的不一定能跟 Adobe 與 Google 他們的目的毫不相衝，且就算真的毫不相衝， Adobe 與 Google 也沒必要特地再花費精力去迎合部分人的「提倡」。若真的覺得這個提倡可以做，那大概也是另外出一套字體就好了，沒必要把原本辛勤的工作成果覆蓋過去。

The existence of the wide variety of derivatives surfacing of existing Kangxi forms and supplementing forms for characters not supported by J/K standards already show there is considerable demand by users.

但畢竟這兩家公司本就不是在做慈善事業，他設計這套字體本來也只是要完成他們的目標

It's up to them to decide whether or not they want to support this user subset. I find your attitude condescending for a native speaker to come over and call other native speakers' actual requirements as unnecessary, and hinting that Adobe or Google need not consider other users' requirements.

有人說普通用戶不 Root 手機就不能改字體，Google 不提供支援就等於失去選擇，那我看到一堆不會 Root 手機的使用者拿著沒 Root 卻以娃娃體作為顯示字體的手機又是怎麼一回事呢？

Up until Android 9, most vendors shipped their own CJK fonts with their devices. Since CJK fonts are so large, it is not very possible to ship with alternate sets, although the situation is alleviated somewhat with increasing memory. Source Han Sans already contains a large amount of Kangxi forms, activated by default in the Japan & Korean locales.

Some vendors ship with commercial fonts (e.g. 「娃娃體」) covering only the most common characters as themes. These are also commercially licensed and vendor specific. The gist of this issue to to support displaying the conventionally designed glyphs for all supported characters for Traditional Chinese.

就如我先前就說的，字體是開源的，有人有什麼自己的需求就 Fork 去改，不會有人阻撓，而現實上就有不少這樣的專案出來，那有些人還在爭什麼呢？如果是因為沒有能力的話，那應該要用合理的理由、理性的態度去說服人家幫你達成你的願望，而不是用否定他人工作成果的方式。

這 Issue 開到現在已經6年了，有心要做一套基於康熙字典體的思源黑體的話不是早就完成了？我沒參加過字體開發，還請有實際經驗的先輩解惑一下

Apparently the issue author and many other proponents of a conservative orthography mentioned in this thread have been shipping various open-source fonts for years. I recommend against subtle accusations of people who are voicing valid requirements and contributing extensively to the community as being whiny.

這樣阿，
因為我不是傳承字形的擁護者，
所以我其實不太懂已經有人弄出來了那還要原廠去「還原」的用意其實是塞進所有 Android 裝置裡面。
我覺得你們去 Android Develop 那邊請願開放可以讓用戶自行安裝/選擇字體，
對你們的訴求「讓使用者可以選擇使用傳承字形」來說這才是比較合理的解法。
雖然我同時也不是國字標準字體擁護者也不 care 這些事情，但你們現在要求「還原」的作法也是在剝奪他們的選擇權。
而且這顯然不是思源黑體本身的錯誤 - 雖然可能這邊的很多人不認同。

至於標準什麼的，前面有講了，在這個討論中我對標準的定義是很狹隘沒錯，不過重點也不在這邊，
畢竟對我來說這些並不是設計字體時絕對必須考慮的點，雖然可能也是有很多人不認同我。

另外對於系統字體那部分還有這邊提倡傳承字形的人大多都是有貢獻的這部分是我用功不足，在此說聲抱歉。
也請容許我抽離這個討論...雖然是我自己跳進來的，因為顯然討論下去不會有交集。

The substantial enhancements to the glyph repertoire of Source Han Sans as discussed in this thread are, unfortunately, beyond the scope of Adobe's current plans and capacity to investigate further. If we are able to revisit this in the future, we will reopen investigation into what would constitute an appropriate set of glyphs.