[NTG-context] what defines the font size?

Pablo Rodriguez 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 mailing list