You signed in with another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You signed out in another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You switched accounts on another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.Dismiss alert
I don't think I buy the premise that they are currently indistinguishable. In fact in side by side comparisons they are clearly different and for example placing a zero in an upper case context is clearly wrong.
SILE Sample Code
\begin[papersize=a6]{document}
\nofolios\neverindent
\font[size=20pt]
\begin{raggedright}
\begin{script}
SILE.registerCommand("sample", function (options, _)
options.family = "Raleway"
SILE.call("font", options, {
"ZER0 ZERO 0123456789"
})
SILE.call("break")
end)
for _, weight in ipairs({100, 200, 300, 400, 500, 600, 700, 800, 900}) do
SILE.call("sample", { weight = weight })
end
\end{script}
\end{raggedright}
\end{document}
Adding a slashed or dotted ‘0’ as a stylistic alternate is certainly something I'd entertain and anybody willing to contribute this as a PR is encouraged to go ahead, I'll help with the details of getting in merged.
...but no I don't think the default glyph shape needs to change.
It occurred to me later the bigger issue is probably with the (non-default) lining numbers. While less distinct, they are still different:
The narrower shape of the zero is quite common and distinguishes it from the O in context. Out of context of course either could be anything, but the same reasoning still applies: slashed or dotted zeros are not the norm for non-monospace programmer fonts and such a glyph if added should be a stylistic alternate.
Sugestion add a slash over or dot in the zero glyph.
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: