The thin space U+2009 is displayed too large

[Guest]

I have set the german language.

The thin space U+2009 is displayed too large.
It is larger than a 6-per-em space.

You can also see it when you compare it to the narrow no-break space U+202F.
The narrow no-break space forms a space like a 6-per-em space.
So the thin space must be the same distance.

But I suggest setting the distance to an 8-per-em space.
So both the thin space and the narrow no-break space to an 8-per-em space.
That is permissible, you can choose between a 6-per-em space or an 8-per-em space.
I suggest the 8-per-em space because otherwise you won't have an 8-per-em space available.

(I hope my english is understandable.)

[uneMule]

Bonjour @raddadist
Le quart de cadratin à la même valeur que l'espace fin (il semble même moins fort).
En typographie, il est comparé à l'espace fin. Cela parait cohérent.
On peut se demander si le cadratin n'est pas un peu fort.

Hi @raddadist
The 4 per em space has the same value as the thin space (it seems even less strong).
In typography, it is compared to the thin space. This seems consistent.
One might ask whether the em is not a bit strong.

Police Arial v7.0 openType - Windows 10

 

Edited August 26, 2021 by uneMule
version police

[Guest]

It is possible that this is only the case with the german language.
I wanted to point out that the thin space U+2009 is displayed too large.
And that the two spaces (thin space and narrow no-break space) do not have the same width.

[walt.farrell]

26 minutes ago, raddadist said:

I wanted to point out that the thin space U+2009 is displayed too large.
And that the two spaces (thin space and narrow no-break space) do not have the same width.

Is that determined by the application, or by the font designer? I would have expected the font to control that.

[Guest]

The thin space U+2009 and the narrow no-break space U+202F are the same spaces except that the second is non-breaking.
 

[walt.farrell]

7 minutes ago, raddadist said:

 

The thin space U+2009 and the narrow no-break space U+202F are the same spaces except that the second is non-breaking.
 

As they are different code points they are different physical characters, and could be designed to have different sizes. What font are you using? Have you examined the characters in it?

[Guest]

I think I am wrong.
I have tested it in InDesign and there are different spaces too.

Sorry, maybe someone can delete this topic.

[uneMule]

19 minutes ago, walt.farrell said:

I would have expected the font to control that.

Bonjour @walt.farrell
Oui la valeur varie selon le corps, mais j'imagine que la question est relative à la règle.
Effectivement, comme le remarque @raddadist l'espace fin est plus fort que le 1/6 de cadratin. On peut penser que c'est la valeur du cadratin qui est trop forte.

Hi @walt.farrell
Yes, the value varies according to the body, but I guess the question is relative to the rule.
Indeed, as @ notes, the thin space is stronger than the 6 per em. One might think that it is the value of the cadratin that is too strong.

9 minutes ago, raddadist said:

The thin space U+2009 and the narrow no-break space U+202F are the same spaces except that the second is non-breaking.

Oui, ce sont les mêmes.

Yes, they are the same.

 

[Guest]

To me it seemed clearly wrong at first.
After I tested it in InDesign, I am now a bit confused.
So, I don't know. I'm not an expert in the field.

[uneMule]

@raddadist

Néanmoins je vois une différence entre ce que vous obtenez et ce que j'obtiens. J'ai mis l'image à jour.
Ici une représentation de la valeur du cadratin en fonction de la police. Les deux M séparés par un espace cadratin. Il semble trop fort.

Nevertheless I see a difference between what you get and what I get. I have updated the image.
Here is a representation of the value of the em as a function of the font. The two M's separated by a em space. It looks too strong.

[garrettm30]

32 minutes ago, walt.farrell said:

Is that determined by the application, or by the font designer? I would have expected the font to control that.

I thought that it is implemented first as parameters within the font, with fallback provided by the layout engine in the Publisher or other software. My experience here is merely anecdotal, with a tiny smattering of knowledge picked up by trying to deal with the issue of thin spaces on the web. Typically thin spaces and nnbsp work well in Publisher, but I have seen cases where for a certain font one or the other is wildly exaggerated in a particular typeface. That has led me to suspect that it is a font setting rather than something Publisher is doing. On the other hand, I have had some other software where fonts I know and love do not display nnbsp properly, but rather as a full space, even though the same character works fine in Publisher and even some browsers, so my uninformed guess in that case is that the character was left undefined and the rendering software (e.g., Publisher) is using a fallback.

As a matter of pure curiosity, I would be interested if someone with font designer experience could explain. But as a practical matter, I do believe it is accurate to say that you may find different results depending on the font you use.

[Guest]

Good to know.

@ uneMule
I tried it again with the same result (german language, macOS Big Sur).

[garrettm30]

To give an example for follow up, here is a comparison of EB Garamond in regular and bold. In the regular weight (left), the two kinds of narrow spaces are basically identical, but when I copied/pasted the text and changed it to bold, regular "thin space" is anything but thin.

So my conclusion from this is that font metrics are at least part of the equation.

[Guest]

It becomes more and more interesting : )

[uneMule]

@raddadist Effectivement intéressant. Indeed interesting.

@garrettm30 Je confirme. La même en Garamond. Mais l'espace cadratin est, ici, correct. I can confirm this. The same in Garamond. But the em space here is correct.

 

That leaves a doubt.

[Wosven]

1 hour ago, garrettm30 said:

so my uninformed guess in that case is that the character was left undefined and the rendering software (e.g., Publisher) is using a fallback.

From something I read long ago I don't know where...

Those subtle spaces rarely exist in the fonts, and layout apps will give the specific and needed proprieties. (The article, that I'll search, was about the different implementations and choices mades by dev,  between QXD and  ID).

[kenmcd]

InDesign overrides the font metrics with its own width for the thinspace character IIRC (quite annoying). So comparing to ID is not an apples-to-apples comparison.

On 8/25/2021 at 6:35 AM, raddadist said:

The thin space U+2009 is displayed too large.
It is larger than a 6-per-em space.

What font are you using? It does vary by font and some fonts have some odd width settings compared to what is considered best practices.

[Guest]

I tested Arial and Baskerville.

[Old Bruce]

Just want to point out that an EM space has nothing to do with the letter m or the letter M. It is a horizontal space equal to the height of the font. 12pt type has a 12 point wide EM space 6 point wide EN space. 30 point type has 30 point wide EM space. And on and on...

[A_B_C]

If the space characters are present in a font, Affinity Publisher seems to use the metrics information from the font. I just checked this with a few examples yesterday. Otherwise, Publisher turns to fallback values. As @Wosven said earlier in this thread, most fonts do not support all the spaces in General Punctuation (U+2000..206F), but some do. So to avoid making methodically misleading comparisons, one would have to check first whether the spaces in question are present in a font.

[garrettm30]

9 minutes ago, Old Bruce said:

Just want to point out that an EM space has nothing to do with the letter m or the letter M.

Well, just for the curious or the pedantic, the word "em," does come from the letter M. My dictionary gives this in the etymology for the word:

Quote

From Modern English M, ‘the letter M, whose capitalized form is approximately the width of an “em”’.

But that is just the origin of the word, not a definition of its value (hence the word "approximately" in that explanation), as fonts can have quite different proportions that are part of what makes different fonts unique.

In a similar way, the English measurement "foot" is so named because of its relation to the adult male foot, but this is only approximate and for centuries has had no direct relationship on defining what we mean by foot for measurement.

[uneMule]

2 hours ago, Old Bruce said:

an EM space has nothing to do with the letter m or the letter M

Oui, c'est vrai. La confusion vient sans doute du fait qu'il est souvent présenté comme tel.

Yes, it is true. The confusion probably comes from the fact that it is often presented as such.

[kenmcd]

4 hours ago, raddadist said:

I tested Arial and Baskerville.

These are from the fonts in macOS Big Sur.

Arial
- has no narrownobreakspace character
- the thinspace (410) is larger than the sixperemspace (341)

Baskerville
- has no thinspace character (so you are seeing a back-up font).

Arial-Regular
-------------
U+0020  space               569
U+00A0  nonbreakingspace    569
U+202F  narrownobreakspace none
U+2000  enquad             1024
U+2001  emquad             2048
U+2002  enspace            1024
U+2003  emspace            2048
U+2004  threeperemspace     683
U+2005  fourperemspace      512
U+2006  sixperemspace       341
U+2007  figurespace        1139
U+2008  punctuationspace    569
U+2009  thinspace           410
U+200A  hairspace           171

Baskeville-Regular
------------------
U+0020  space              512
U+00A0  nonbreakingspace   512
U+202F  narrownobreakspace 352
U+2000  enquad             none
U+2001  emquad             none
U+2002  enspace            none
U+2003  emspace            none
U+2004  threeperemspace    none
U+2005  fourperemspace     none
U+2006  sixperemspace      none
U+2007  figurespace        none
U+2008  punctuationspace   none
U+2009  thinspace          none
U+200A  hairspace          none

 

Again, Affinity folks, users need to see replacements are happening as they type.

[walt.farrell]

4 hours ago, Old Bruce said:

Just want to point out that an EM space has nothing to do with the letter m or the letter M. It is a horizontal space equal to the height of the font.

But according to some sources I've read, in the old days of metal type, an "em" was defined as being the height of the letter M, which also happened to be the width of the letter M as (in those days) an M was basically square.

I cannot say whether that's true, though, so if you have better references I'd be interested in reading them.

[Old Bruce]

Every EM I came across was square, the height and width were the same. Setting metal type means that is quite useful. Put a 12 point letter in with some 11 point type and try to move it into the chase, big mess.

I have no sources for reading, just my experience back in the previous century when I would set metal type by hand. Every EM space was square as that was how they were designed.