It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!

- 3K All Categories
- 5 Introductions
- 2.4K Typeface Design
- 383 Font Technology
- 794 Technique and Theory
- 319 Type Business
- 299 Type Design Critiques
- 415 Type Design Software
- 29 Punchcutting
- 63 Lettering and Calligraphy
- 39 Technique and Theory
- 24 Lettering Critiques
- 235 Typography
- 164 History of Typography
- 71 Education
- 350 Announcements
- 59 Events
- 69 Job Postings
- 104 Type Releases
- 117 Miscellaneous News
- 180 About TypeDrawers
- 41 TypeDrawers Announcements
- 77 Suggestions and Bug Reports

mauro sacchetto
Posts: **194**

Something escapes me on the mechanism adopted by some fonts to manage proportional and tabular numbers.

GaramondPremierePro does not seem to present proportional uppercase numbers. It contains the glyphs of the numbers (slots from 48 to 57) and those of the numbers .fitted (slots from 63033 to 63041 + 63196), but all the uppercase numbers have the same width (including the bearing, all are 486 pt), so in fact they are tabular as the .fitted ones.

However, if I compile with LaTeX I add the <lining> option, the numbers become proportional.

Did I look badly or is there some mechanism I didn't catch?

GaramondPremierePro does not seem to present proportional uppercase numbers. It contains the glyphs of the numbers (slots from 48 to 57) and those of the numbers .fitted (slots from 63033 to 63041 + 63196), but all the uppercase numbers have the same width (including the bearing, all are 486 pt), so in fact they are tabular as the .fitted ones.

However, if I compile with LaTeX I add the <lining> option, the numbers become proportional.

Did I look badly or is there some mechanism I didn't catch?

0

## Comments

898.fittedalternates (and none for the default figures)..fittedfigures that are substituted with {pnum} behave proportionally, even though technically they all have the same width.1941,6531,429Or, if the defaults are proportional, for their <tnum> alternates.

However, I often make the <tnum> glyphs for “one” wider, and the “zero” narrower, than their proportional siblings: non-identical twins.

1,653