In fact it should be considered a variant of g.
Or q.
The representative glyph for this character seems to be good.
It is. We went to a lot of trouble getting it that way too.
But, given that the name is so misleading but cannot be changed, it is good that there is a note "= gha" in the Unicode character charts.
But in the light of naming errors like this one implementers should be advised not to use character names, because they are not reliably helpful.
I wouldn't say that. It would better to advise them, as we do, that they cannot rely on the names being perfect. That's different from not using them at all.
--
Michael Everson * * Everson Typography * * http://www.evertype.com
