- From: Prof. Erik Spiekermann <erik@metadesign.com>
- Date: Wed, 26 Jan 2000 04:07:33 -0500 (EST)
- To: Jelle Bosma <jelleb@euronet.nl>, Erik van der Poel <erik@netscape.com>, <www-font@w3.org>
on 26.01.2000 09:13, Jelle Bosma wrote: > > -----Oorspronkelijk bericht----- > Van: Erik van der Poel <erik@netscape.com> > Aan: www-font@w3.org <www-font@w3.org> > Datum: dinsdag 25 januari 2000 23:11 > Onderwerp: Re: ascender, descender, cap-height and x-height > > >> All, >> So, if the actual glyphs have such a loose relationship with the em >> square, and font size is defined in terms of em square, then >> font-size-adjust becomes ill-defined too, since aspect is defined in >> terms of font size (and x-height). >> >> I think the font size should be the sum of the "nominal" ascender and >> the nominal descender for fonts with upper and lower case letters, and >> some other nominal value for other fonts. That's why I'd like to know >> whether I can reliably determine ascender, descender and x-height, and >> how to do that. >> > > > It is the type designer who decides on how large the font > is in the EM square. There are no rules. In TrueType > (and OpenType) you can get some measurements such > as the Typographic ascend and descend as explained by Greg. > These values are in the OS/2 table of the font. > In Monotype fonts these are set to top f and bottom g > for the font family. Whether fonts of other foundries > contain reliable values I am not sure. Many foundries didn't > bother much about these things until recently. > > Jelle Bosma > Agfa Monotype > > > BTW: AFM files produced by Fontographer et al also include these measurements. -- = 8-) | Prof. Erik Spiekermann | erik@metadesign.com | | MetaDesign | Berlin | London | San Francisco | | Europe +49-172-3131711 | USA +1-415-203 7130 | | STRESSED spelled backwards is DESSERTS. |
Received on Wednesday, 26 January 2000 12:31:25 UTC