![](https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/5955e8e90611e77ccbfc7721b6112027.jpg?s=120&d=mm&r=g)
On 10/17/18 11:02 AM, Arthur Reutenauer wrote:
On Tue, Oct 16, 2018 at 07:48:41PM +0200, Pablo Rodriguez wrote: [...] It’s less clear what you’re trying to do next:
[...] What are you trying to demonstrate with this? If you change the size of the font, obviously the glyphs have different sizes. The initial size at \starttext is 12pt, then \tfxx and \tfd change the sizes, to 8pt and 20.736pt respectively. Hence the former looks quite small in the box, and the latter looks very large. All that’s perfectly normal, and since you’re not changing the font, or even the glyph, it’s not a good illustration of the points raised in your initial email.
I tried to show that the em square is the fixed measure. But the glyphs may relate in different ways to that square. I know that \tfxx and \tfd are different sizes. But there would be nothing against taking each of them to develop a new font (at 12 points) with their diverse glyph sizes. Or am I missing something.
The issue with units per em is something I didn’t understand.
That’s irrelevant for you as a font user. Don’t worry about it.
A user that asks why different fonts have glyphs with different sizes given the same point for both, doesn’t remain a font user anymore. (I only wanted to understand, in order to be able to illustrate other people.) Pablo -- http://www.ousia.tk