Re: Increase default `line-spacing' to 0.05, 0.10 or 0.15 [proposal]

[Augusto Stoffel]

On Wed,  5 May 2021 at 14:47, Stefan Kangas <stefankangas@gmail.com> wrote:

> Augusto Stoffel <arstoffel@gmail.com> writes:
>
>> In normal typography you are free to choose how much space to add
>> between lines, but the horizontal condensedness is a fixed
>> characteristic of the font.
>
> In a sense, you are free to choose vertical spacing however you want.
> But a lot of time and effort has been invested into figuring out how to
> choose line height (leading) wisely.  It is generally a good idea to try
> to adhere to such best practices.

Comparing the picture in [1] and what I see if I put the block cursor
over an "H", I conclude that monospaced fonts come with some built-in
leading.  In other words, they are "bastard fonts" [2], and a nil for
`line-spacing' doesn't mean "solid" typesetting.

Does that mean the built-in leading is optimal, or a good default?  Not
necessarily, of course.

I wrote mostly to point out that changing the line spacing breaks any
fancy box-drawing.  I'm not claiming this is more important than the
other considerations you made, by the way.

[1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Body_height_(typography)
[2]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leading#Bastard_fonts

> In body text, horizontal spacing is generally determined by the typeface
> itself.  However, in certain situations we do need to use kerning, and
> even tracking (letter-spacing).  So I don't exactly understand why you
> consider this more of a "fixed characteristic" than vertical spacing.

Kerning, tracking and other forms of microtypography are case-by-case
adjustments, intended to be basically subliminal, so I'd say yes, the
overall condensedness is pretty much a fixed characteristic of the font.
And these things are out of reach for Emacs anyway.

Leading is a global, visible design choice.  That's why I made the
distinction.