Skip to content
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

FiraMono: xAvgCharWidth should match the standard glyph advance #47

Closed
jfkthame opened this issue Jun 30, 2014 · 6 comments
Closed

FiraMono: xAvgCharWidth should match the standard glyph advance #47

jfkthame opened this issue Jun 30, 2014 · 6 comments

Comments

@jfkthame
Copy link
Contributor

In FiraMono-Regular.otf, the OS/2 table includes

<xAvgCharWidth value="585"/>

although the standard width of the (monospaced) glyphs is 600. This should be changed so that it matches the actual glyphs.

It looks like Glyphs is calculating an average that includes the small number of zero-width glyphs in the font. This results in an average that is slightly less than the font's fixed glyph advance, but it's not helpful for client software - e.g. when using this value to determine the size of a text area that's supposed to be "80 characters wide".

The OpenType spec[1] actually specifies this: "The value for xAvgCharWidth is calculated by obtaining the arithmetic average of the width of all non-zero width glyphs in the font." (My emphasis.)

[1] http://www.microsoft.com/typography/otspec/os2.htm#acw

@schriftgestalt
Copy link

The value is generated by makeOTF that is used the generate most tables. I will check with Adobe why they do not follow the specs for this. I fixed it on my side.

@adrientetar
Copy link

@schriftgestalt Have you heard back from them?

@schriftgestalt
Copy link

I fixed it myself. The latest beta should set the correct value.

@adrientetar
Copy link

But is there an issue in Adobe’s toolset? If so, I think it should be fixed upstream.

@schriftgestalt
Copy link

I will fix it in the fdk Github.

@adrientetar
Copy link

Thanks! Cheers.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

4 participants