Line height setup

[graphicore]

This is a follow up of #3 With input from Khaled Hosny

On 06/11/2015 04:40 PM, Khaled Hosny wrote:

On Thu, Jun 11, 2015 at 04:39:13PM +0200, Lasse Fister wrote:

Dave also asked me to set ascender and descender to the global yMin yMax values, But I think the default line-spacing is extreme big now. This is because we have some very extreme characters in the font that push the max-values up; like unicode 06DD ARABIC END OF AYAH.

Right, that practice does not work well for Arabic. What you should do is to set typo and hhea metrics to sensible values that give the line spacing you desire, and set win metrics to the max (just ticking the offset check mark in FontForge and using 0 as value will do), and just ignore apps that still use win metrics for line spacing because they are unfixable anyway.

Regards, Khaled

[graphicore]

@davelab6 what do you think?

[davelab6]

Follow @khaledhosny on this.

[graphicore]

now it is: Ascender: 1840 Descender: -1160

in OS2:

    <sTypoAscender value="1840"/>
    <sTypoDescender value="-1160"/>

in hhea:

    <ascent value="1840"/>
    <descent value="-1160"/>

@Tarobish @EbenSorkin Probably as the designers you should decide about the default line-height? I chose something that I think leaves enough room for the dots (it shouldn't be less). However, we can set it to other values.

[EbenSorkin]

I agree. Shoot for something that let’s the Arabic breathe enough to be useful and then let users of the Latin reduce linespace if they choose to do that. Kourosh, what vertical metrics values give us that?

Lasse, I will get you the info needed to begin the contract this evening.

I am finding that the Latin is pretty deeply flawed. The main idea is right in terms of weight and width but I think I probably want to get rid of the slab serifs and replace them with something more old style - or to go Sans. I also want to re-draw the rounds to echo the more sophisticated shapes in the Arabic. I am also very interested in working to echo the density of the Arabic which is very display oriented. At the moment the spacing is too loose to match well.

Anyway - if you would both give me some feedback about these ideas that would be great. I would like to know we are mostly in agreement before I begin. I will of course send you proofs of a limited glyph set early on so we can check that this approach is working together.

-e.

On Jun 19, 2015, at 3:00 PM, Lasse Fister notifications@github.com wrote:

now it is: Ascender: 1840 Descender: -1160

in OS2:

<sTypoAscender value="1840"/>
<sTypoDescender value="-1160"/>

in hhea:

<ascent value="1840"/>
<descent value="-1160"/>

@Tarobish @EbenSorkin Probably as the designers you should decide about the default line-height? I chose something that I think leaves enough room for the dots (it shouldn't be less). However, we can set it to other values.

— Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub.

[EbenSorkin]

On Jun 19, 2015, at 12:21 PM, Eben Sorkin sorkineben@gmail.com wrote:

I agree. Shoot for something that let’s the Arabic breathe enough to be useful and then let users of the Latin reduce linespace if they choose to do that. Kourosh, what vertical metrics values give us that? I checked the linespace in different sizes, i believe it could be less. Lets try 1800

Lasse, I will get you the info needed to begin the contract this evening.

I am finding that the Latin is pretty deeply flawed. The main idea is right in terms of weight and width but I think I probably want to get rid of the slab serifs and replace them with something more old style - or to go Sans. I also want to re-draw the rounds to echo the more sophisticated shapes in the Arabic. I am also very interested in working to echo the density of the Arabic which is very display oriented. At the moment the spacing is too loose to match well. of course, i do agree with your idea. lets try it to see how it works.

Anyway - if you would both give me some feedback about these ideas that would be great. I would like to know we are mostly in agreement before I begin. I will of course send you proofs of a limited glyph set early on so we can check that this approach is working together.

-e.

On Jun 19, 2015, at 3:00 PM, Lasse Fister <notifications@github.com mailto:notifications@github.com> wrote:

now it is: Ascender: 1840 Descender: -1160

in OS2:

<sTypoAscender value="1840"/>
<sTypoDescender value="-1160"/>

in hhea:

<ascent value="1840"/>
<descent value="-1160"/>

@Tarobish https://github.com/Tarobish @EbenSorkin https://github.com/EbenSorkin Probably as the designers you should decide about the default line-height? I chose something that I think leaves enough room for the dots (it shouldn't be less). However, we can set it to other values.

— Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub https://github.com/Tarobish/Jomhuria/issues/16#issuecomment-113607024.

[graphicore]

Lasse, I will get you the info needed to begin the contract this evening. … I would like to know we are mostly in agreement before I begin. I will of course send you proofs of a limited glyph set early on so we can check that this approach is working together.

Waiting for this.

[graphicore]

Lets try 1800 As Ascender?

I checked some glyphs with three dots above and below. Their height was my guide. Less would make it possible for these to collide between lines. Wouldn't happen too often, I guess.

[Tarobish]

You are absolutely right. lets keep it the way it is.

On Jun 20, 2015, at 11:24 AM, Lasse Fister notifications@github.com wrote:

Lets try 1800 As Ascender?

I checked some glyphs with three dots above and below. Their height was my guide. Less would make it possible for these to collide between lines. Wouldn't happen too often, I guess.

— Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub https://github.com/Tarobish/Jomhuria/issues/16#issuecomment-113799905.