Font is 1 size larger than the original rubjo/victor-mono
acid-bong opened this issue · comments
Tried both 1.560 and .562, both are pretty large in the terminal: size 10 looks like original size 11, size 9 looks like OG 10 and so on. Both st and Alacritty, and the dwm statusbar reflect this. No difference in Firefox tho.
Is this a requirement for Google or some miscalculation in the build process?
In the process of making the font ready for Google Fonts, several adjustments for the font metrics and settings needed to be made to satisfy their tests to pass and have the font be approved for GF inclusion. This probably leads to the GF version looking slightly different from the one in the main repo. I might backport most or all these changes to the main repo at some point.
Including the size difference? I already see improvements in handling line height, for which big kudos, but other fonts' (Liberation Mono, Iosevka) glyphs have roughly the same height (within one font size) as the OG Victor Mono
If I ever get around to merging and unifying the differences between the two variants, I might look into how future versions could preserve the original size - as for now, I guess the best option is to decrease the font size by 1?
As for now with this font -- yes, that's what I'm doing. Anyway, best luck and cheers
The outlines are 100% the same, but the EM size changed.
EM is used to define how font-point-size translates to outline-coordinates.
All the other metrics are identical or fixed, and the gap has been dropped:
So the singe change is the EM change. The old value of 1100 is 'unusual' and should trigger a warning with GF, but should not be an error. It is independent on all other metrics (changes).
Do GF really flag 1100 as error?
Edit: GRR, the top image shows 1.562 left while in the bottom image 1.562 is right, sorry to confuse you
Edit: Exchanged top (fontforge) image, left is now always 1.540
Looking at the spec, it was probably just a warning, yes.
Well, if you export ttf and otf with the same EM, you will get a warning either here or there, because they have conflicting 'customary values' ;-)
I guess these old expectations of EM value are obsolete nowadays anyway. I remember a discussion on some font forum, maybe I can find it.
Pic taken of my "Fonts & Encodings" by Haralamnous
And Victor Gaultney writes here:
If you change the EM and want to keep the look the same you need to scale all glyphs. I know that fontforge can do that, never needed to do that with Glyphs (and I do not even know what you use ;-)
Thanks, I'm trying this now and hoping that will solve the size difference at least.
Now 1.563 is back to its original size, thanks 👍