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 ___________________________________________________________________________________ If your question is of interest to others as well, please add an entry to the Wiki! maillist : ntg-context@ntg.nl / http://www.ntg.nl/mailman/listinfo/ntg-context webpage : http://www.pragma-ade.nl / http://context.aanhet.net archive : https://bitbucket.org/phg/context-mirror/commits/ wiki : http://contextgarden.net ___________________________________________________________________________________
