Interpolation problems in Recursive[CASL,CRSV,MONO,slnt,wght].ttf

[behdad]

Hello!

This is an automatically-generated report about possible interpolation problems in Recursive[CASL,CRSV,MONO,slnt,wght].ttf, as found in the Google Fonts catalog.

To download a PDF version of this report with helpful visuals of the problems, click here; Or to view it on the GitHub website, click here.

The report follows:

Glyph Euro was not compatible:
  Masters: '', 'CASL=1.0':
    Contour 0 has a kink at 45: '', 'CASL=1.0'
Glyph Oslash was not compatible:
  Masters: 'CASL=1.0 MONO=1.0 wght=800.0061', 'CASL=1.0 MONO=1.0 wght=1000.0':
    Contour 0 has a kink at 21: 'CASL=1.0 MONO=1.0 wght=800.0061', 'CASL=1.0 MONO=1.0 wght=1000.0'
Glyph Oslashacute was not compatible:
  Masters: 'CASL=1.0 MONO=1.0 wght=800.0061', 'CASL=1.0 MONO=1.0 wght=1000.0':
    Contour 0 has a kink at 21: 'CASL=1.0 MONO=1.0 wght=800.0061', 'CASL=1.0 MONO=1.0 wght=1000.0'
Glyph k.italic was not compatible:
  Masters: 'CASL=1.0 wght=800.0061', 'CASL=1.0 wght=1000.0':
    Contour 1 has a kink at 15: 'CASL=1.0 wght=800.0061', 'CASL=1.0 wght=1000.0'
  Masters: 'CASL=1.0 MONO=1.0 wght=800.0061', 'CASL=1.0 MONO=1.0 wght=1000.0':
    Contour 1 has a kink at 15: 'CASL=1.0 MONO=1.0 wght=800.0061', 'CASL=1.0 MONO=1.0 wght=1000.0'
Glyph one was not compatible:
  Masters: '', 'CASL=1.0':
    Contour 1 start point differs: 0 in '', 2 in 'CASL=1.0'; reversed: False
Glyph one.pnum was not compatible:
  Masters: '', 'CASL=1.0':
    Contour 1 start point differs: 0 in '', 2 in 'CASL=1.0'; reversed: False
Glyph percent was not compatible:
  Masters: 'wght=800.0061', 'wght=1000.0':
    Contour 1 structures differ: 'wght=800.0061', 'wght=1000.0'
    Contour 3 structures differ: 'wght=800.0061', 'wght=1000.0'
  Masters: 'CASL=1.0 wght=800.0061', 'CASL=1.0 wght=1000.0':
    Contour 3 structures differ: 'CASL=1.0 wght=800.0061', 'CASL=1.0 wght=1000.0'
  Masters: 'slnt=-14.0497 wght=800.0061', 'slnt=-14.0497 wght=1000.0':
    Contour 1 structures differ: 'slnt=-14.0497 wght=800.0061', 'slnt=-14.0497 wght=1000.0'
    Contour 3 structures differ: 'slnt=-14.0497 wght=800.0061', 'slnt=-14.0497 wght=1000.0'
  Masters: 'CASL=1.0 slnt=-14.0497 wght=800.0061', 'CASL=1.0 slnt=-14.0497 wght=1000.0':
    Contour 1 structures differ: 'CASL=1.0 slnt=-14.0497 wght=800.0061', 'CASL=1.0 slnt=-14.0497 wght=1000.0'
    Contour 3 structures differ: 'CASL=1.0 slnt=-14.0497 wght=800.0061', 'CASL=1.0 slnt=-14.0497 wght=1000.0'
Glyph perthousand was not compatible:
  Masters: 'wght=800.0061', 'wght=1000.0':
    Contour 2 start point differs: 0 in 'wght=800.0061', 25 in 'wght=1000.0'; reversed: True
    Contour 4 start point differs: 0 in 'wght=800.0061', 25 in 'wght=1000.0'; reversed: True
    Contour 6 start point differs: 0 in 'wght=800.0061', 25 in 'wght=1000.0'; reversed: True
  Masters: 'CASL=1.0 wght=800.0061', 'CASL=1.0 wght=1000.0':
    Contour 2 structures differ: 'CASL=1.0 wght=800.0061', 'CASL=1.0 wght=1000.0'
    Contour 4 structures differ: 'CASL=1.0 wght=800.0061', 'CASL=1.0 wght=1000.0'
  Masters: 'slnt=-14.0497 wght=800.0061', 'slnt=-14.0497 wght=1000.0':
    Contour 2 start point differs: 0 in 'slnt=-14.0497 wght=800.0061', 25 in 'slnt=-14.0497 wght=1000.0'; reversed: True
    Contour 4 start point differs: 0 in 'slnt=-14.0497 wght=800.0061', 25 in 'slnt=-14.0497 wght=1000.0'; reversed: True
    Contour 6 start point differs: 0 in 'slnt=-14.0497 wght=800.0061', 25 in 'slnt=-14.0497 wght=1000.0'; reversed: True
  Masters: 'CASL=1.0 slnt=-14.0497 wght=800.0061', 'CASL=1.0 slnt=-14.0497 wght=1000.0':
    Contour 2 structures differ: 'CASL=1.0 slnt=-14.0497 wght=800.0061', 'CASL=1.0 slnt=-14.0497 wght=1000.0'
    Contour 4 structures differ: 'CASL=1.0 slnt=-14.0497 wght=800.0061', 'CASL=1.0 slnt=-14.0497 wght=1000.0'
Glyph question was not compatible:
  Masters: '', 'wght=800.0061':
    Contour 1 has a kink at 48: '', 'wght=800.0061'
  Masters: 'MONO=1.0', 'MONO=1.0 wght=800.0061':
    Contour 1 has a kink at 48: 'MONO=1.0', 'MONO=1.0 wght=800.0061'
Glyph questiondown was not compatible:
  Masters: '', 'wght=800.0061':
    Contour 1 has a kink at 48: '', 'wght=800.0061'
  Masters: 'slnt=-14.0497', 'slnt=-14.0497 wght=800.0061':
    Contour 1 has a kink at 48: 'slnt=-14.0497', 'slnt=-14.0497 wght=800.0061'
Glyph questiondown.case was not compatible:
  Masters: '', 'wght=800.0061':
    Contour 1 has a kink at 48: '', 'wght=800.0061'
  Masters: 'MONO=1.0', 'MONO=1.0 wght=800.0061':
    Contour 1 has a kink at 48: 'MONO=1.0', 'MONO=1.0 wght=800.0061'
  Masters: 'slnt=-14.0497', 'slnt=-14.0497 wght=800.0061':
    Contour 1 has a kink at 48: 'slnt=-14.0497', 'slnt=-14.0497 wght=800.0061'
  Masters: 'MONO=1.0 slnt=-14.0497', 'MONO=1.0 slnt=-14.0497 wght=800.0061':
    Contour 1 has a kink at 48: 'MONO=1.0 slnt=-14.0497', 'MONO=1.0 slnt=-14.0497 wght=800.0061'
Glyph qust_colon.code was not compatible:
  Masters: '', 'wght=800.0061':
    Contour 3 has a kink at 48: '', 'wght=800.0061'
  Masters: 'MONO=1.0', 'MONO=1.0 wght=800.0061':
    Contour 3 has a kink at 48: 'MONO=1.0', 'MONO=1.0 wght=800.0061'
Glyph qust_qust.code was not compatible:
  Masters: '', 'wght=800.0061':
    Contour 1 has a kink at 48: '', 'wght=800.0061'
    Contour 3 has a kink at 48: '', 'wght=800.0061'
  Masters: 'slnt=-14.0497', 'slnt=-14.0497 wght=800.0061':
    Contour 3 has a kink at 48: 'slnt=-14.0497', 'slnt=-14.0497 wght=800.0061'
Glyph uni031B was not compatible:
  Masters: '', 'CASL=1.0':
    Contour 0 start point differs: 0 in '', 42 in 'CASL=1.0'; reversed: False
Glyph uni20B5 was not compatible:
  Masters: '', 'CASL=1.0':
    Contour 0 has a kink at 11: '', 'CASL=1.0'

This report was generated using the fonttools varLib.interpolatable tool. We understand that sometimes the tool generates false-positives. Particularly for more complicated font designs. If you did not find this report useful, please accept our apologies and ignore / close it.

To give feedback about this report, please file an issue or open a discussion at fonttools.

Please note that I am doing this as a community service and do not represent Google Fonts.

[arrowtype]

This report was from an improved version of the testing tool, as far as I know, but I’ll close this issue in favor of #527, as the reports seem very similar, and there is more discussion in the other issue.

[behdad]

Oh I didn't mean to file a duplicate one. My tools went crazy it seems.