- All Categories
- 34 Introductions
- 3.5K Typeface Design
- 736 Font Technology
- 1K Technique and Theory
- 557 Type Business
- 423 Type Design Critiques
- 518 Type Design Software
- 29 Punchcutting
- 126 Lettering and Calligraphy
- 74 Technique and Theory
- 52 Lettering Critiques
- 439 Typography
- 277 History of Typography
- 107 Education
- 55 Resources
- 465 Announcements
- 69 Events
- 101 Job Postings
- 145 Type Releases
- 149 Miscellaneous News
- 255 About TypeDrawers
- 51 TypeDrawers Announcements
- 109 Suggestions and Bug Reports

Michael Rafailyk
Posts: **127**

Hello!

I want to add a**space**, **period**, and **comma** (maybe something else usefull for the tables?) to the Tabular Figures feature, but the font contains both Lining and Oldstyle Figures, so it's become more complicated and I'm stuck a bit in the dependencies.

**Classes**

**Lookups**

Lining

Here, Tabular and Proportional lookups are dependent from what has been substituted before it – in the Lining and Oldstyle. So it's a chain where the first step is a substitution of**space** by **space.osf** in the Oldstyle lookup, and the next step is a substituton of **space.osf** by **space.tosf** in the Tabular lookup.

**The problem**

Lining Tabular figures have different advance width (in my case) than Oldstyle Tabular figures, so I need to have different**space.tf** and **space.tosf**. That mean, I also need to have different **space** and **space.osf**. It's 4 different versions of the space glyph (and for period and comma too) where **space** and **space.osf** are identical (the same width) just with the different names.

I'm wondering if this intermediate duplicate (space.osf) can be avoided. I know it's possible to apply a few unicodes to one glyph, but not the a few names, so it should be different separated glyphs. Is that right?

I want to add a

@lf = [zero one two three four five six seven eight nine]; @osf = [zero.osf one.osf two.osf three.osf four.osf five.osf six.osf seven.osf eight.osf nine.osf]; @tf = [zero.tf one.tf two.tf three.tf four.tf five.tf six.tf seven.tf eight.tf nine.tf]; @tosf = [zero.tosf one.tosf two.tosf three.tosf four.tosf five.tosf six.tosf seven.tosf eight.tosf nine.tosf]; @lfPunct = [space period comma]; # original @osfPunct = [space.osf period.osf comma.osf]; # identical to original @tfPunct = [space.tf period.tf comma.tf]; # by Lining Tabular width @tosfPunct = [space.tosf period.tosf comma.tosf]; # by Oldstyle Tabular width

Lining

sub @osf by @lf sub @osfPunct by @lfPunctOldstyle

sub @lf by @osf sub @lfPunct by @osfPunctProportional

sub @tf by @lf sub @tfPunct by @lfPunct sub @tosf by @osf sub @tosfPunct by @osfPunctTabular

sub @lf by @tf sub @lfPunct by @tfPunct sub @osf by @tosf sub @osfPunct by @tosfPunct

Here, Tabular and Proportional lookups are dependent from what has been substituted before it – in the Lining and Oldstyle. So it's a chain where the first step is a substitution of

Lining Tabular figures have different advance width (in my case) than Oldstyle Tabular figures, so I need to have different

I'm wondering if this intermediate duplicate (space.osf) can be avoided. I know it's possible to apply a few unicodes to one glyph, but not the a few names, so it should be different separated glyphs. Is that right?

Tagged:

0

## Comments

2,818So order your tnum lookup before your onum lookup and in tnum have

then in your onum lookup have

J.

127My case is just reversed (onum/lnum first and then tnum/pnum) and it looks like this:

onum

tnum

That is, the number of steps is the same. So, in any case, there should be 4 (not 3) versions of

space. O'k, looks like it's normal practice.Thanks John.

2,059Imagine that a typographer has prepared a complex table with oldstyle figures and the client says “Nah, change the figures to lining”.

(And while you’re at it, make sure that different weights of tab figures have the same width too.)

127I think it's possible to leave both proportional figures as they are, and just find a certain common advance width for Tabular Linings and Tabular Oldstyle figures only.

And it also simplifies the logic, to only two versions of punctuation instead of four.

Thanks for your thoughts.