Re: Tick Reduction

[Lars Ingebrigtsen]

I wondered how a browser renders a mix of proportional an monospace
text.  So here's Emacs (with eww):

The heights are the same, but visually the monospace text looks a bit on
the big side?

Here's Firefox:

They seem to be going way in the opposite direction -- the monospace
text is significantly smaller than the proportional text.

Here's Chromium:

Same thing as in Firefox.  (HTML test file included below.)

I think that mixture of fonts looks better than the Emacs one -- but the
choice is easier in a browser -- the primary font will definitely be a
proportional one, and the monospace font is secondary.  And in Emacs
it's the opposite -- we can't choose a proportional font that's bigger
than the primary font, because that'll make lines with wonky heights.

OK, here's an idea: What about we don't use the default face for
monospace text in buffers with "primarily" proportional text, but use a
smaller one?  Let's see...

That's with a :height 0.9.  I think that looks visually less messy?

So we'd introduce a new face like this:

(defface fixed-pitch-for-proportional-buffers-but-a-better-name
  '((t :inherit fixed-pitch :height 0.9))
  "The basic fixed-pitch face."
  :group 'basic-faces)

And then use that in these primarily-proportional buffers.

-- 
(domestic pets only, the antidote for overdose, milk.)
   bloggy blog: http://lars.ingebrigtsen.no
There's some text and then here's some monospace text and
then some more text.