-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 47
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
Support for proportional fonts #24
Comments
Hi @matj1, thanks for reporting this! I don’t know how it hasn’t come up before, but indeed, I have confirmed that you are correct – this script forces everything into 600-unit glyph widths, so it currently doesn’t work well at all to use anything besides I’ll poke around for a few minutes, but I’m not sure if I’ll be able to really dig in and fix this today. I’ll try to update here if I can. |
Okay, I was able to solve a good chunk of this in the proportional branch ... have a look and test it, if you want. The main remaining problem is that you cannot currently "bake-in" code ligatures without deleting the kerning, and having the code ligatures offset to the left in their glyph space. This project bakes-in code ligatures under the If you want both proportional glyphs and code ligatures, there is a workaround: Leave |
That was quick. Does it work well apart from calt? Why does calt behave differently than dlig? I expect that, if they offer the same ligatures, they would behave the same. |
Yes, it seems to work well overall. Whether code ligatures work depends on whether your editor (IntelliJ, looks like?) allows you to activate arbitrary OpenType features, like I’ve now mostly fixed the width issue when If you want, please go ahead and try it from that branch, and let me know if you find any other issues!
Hmm, it’s a little hard to know how to answer this without a lot of background info. I’ll try to summarize, partly to help me sort out my thoughts. There are many different feature tags specified in the OpenType spec. A font maker can put any given font behavior into (I think) any feature tag. However, font tags have intended meanings, and therefore, software treats them differently. For example,
In my view, Meanwhile, in fonts like Fira Code, the makers did want code ligatures to be active by default, so they put code ligatures into the And now, my immediate problem is that this Recursive Code Config tool works by "freezing" in OT stylistic set features, and then just replacing the fonts’ OpenType code with a premade So... I should really try to find a way to be more surgical in my edits to the font features, and only swap |
Okay, I think I’ve fixed this and improved things, overall, for proportional fonts. I’ve made a new issue for the separate problem of fully monospaced fonts losing some feature code: #26 OP: please give the branch a try if you can, and if you confirm that it’s working as you expect, I think I’ll merge that PR and close this issue. |
The branch works well. I did not notice any wrong kerning with code ligatures enabled with |
It works and I have nothing else to add to this, so I will close this issue. |
I would like to have a custom proportional variant of Recursive for programming. I used this configurator, set MONO to 0.25, and the result looks wrong.
Please, make it work with proportional fonts too.
The text editor works well with Recursive Sans Linear Static, so the problem is probably that this configurator forces every glyph into the same width. I want that every character would keep its original width.
My variant looks like this:
This is my configuration:
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: