[NTG-context] what defines the font size?
oinos at gmx.es
Wed Oct 17 18:14:21 CEST 2018
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
More information about the ntg-context