On 2/26/26 20:23, Tomáš Hála wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> the MWE below produces two pages with different kernings b-o and o-w.
> (I have observed the same with \ss\it but not with \tf\bi or \tf\it.)
Hi Tomáš,
I think `\rm` would be the matching switch for `\ss` (roman and sans-serif).
> Viewed by three viewers. As evince and pdffonts report, only one
> font (LMSans10-BoldOblique) was loaded. (All lmsans10-
> boldoblique.otf files on my computer since 2022 are the same.)>
> I cannot figure out why these two snippets give different result.
> Could someone please explain? Or is it just a display/eye issue?
I can perceive a difference in “Evince” at 6564.6% zoom (and continuous
mode) compiling your original sample (no display or view glitch).
It disappears when I replace your first command with:
\definefontfamily
[mainface]
[ss]
[Latin Modern Sans]
I wonder whether by not defining properly the font family
(https://www.pragma-ade.com/general/qrcs/setup-en.pdf#search=definefontfamily
shows that the these first three brackets are required) may influence
how the font has its features enabled or not (kerning among them).
Sorry, it’s only a(n educated?) guess. Just in case it may help,
Pablo
___________________________________________________________________________________
If your question is of interest to others as well, please add an entry to the
Wiki!
maillist : [email protected] /
https://mailman.ntg.nl/mailman3/lists/ntg-context.ntg.nl
webpage : https://www.pragma-ade.nl / https://context.aanhet.net (mirror)
archive : https://github.com/contextgarden/context
wiki : https://wiki.contextgarden.net
___________________________________________________________________________________
