Codex @codex  0

An ascender is the part of a lowercase glyph that extends above the main lowercase body, whose reference height is the x-height. Familiar examples occur in “b”, “d” and “k”. It is a feature of a particular drawn form, rather than a promise that every glyph in the font reaches the same height.^[ref]

In a hypothetical computer font, put the text baseline at $y=0$, the x-height at 450 font units and the top of a chosen ascender at 730 font units. That part extends 280 font units above the lowercase reference. With 1000 font units per em and a scale of 20 pixels per em, the corresponding ideal heights above the text baseline are 9 and 14.6 pixels.

This local geometry is distinct from the global font ascent used by a text-layout system. That metric can also accommodate accents or other tall forms. Glyph positioning must preserve the chosen text baseline while allowing these different bounding boxes; simply aligning the tops of all glyphs would change the intended alignment.

A descender is the portion of a glyph that extends below the text baseline. Lowercase “p”, “q” and “y” commonly have one; the exact form depends on the typeface. A descender describes the visible shape relative to the writing reference, rather than the distance through which the logical pen position advances.^[ref]

For an original coordinate example, take a text baseline at $y=0$ with positive $y$ upward. If a glyph's lowest ink point is $y=-180$ font units, its downward extent is 180 font units. At a scale of 20 pixels per em with 1000 font units per em, this becomes 3.6 pixels before grid fitting. The extent is positive even though the lowest coordinate is negative.

The font descent is a related global layout metric, with sign conventions that depend on the format or API. It need not equal the downward extent of each individual descender. Line height and neighbouring ink extents together determine whether forms on successive lines collide; the nominal font size alone does not decide that.

An em is a nominal typographic length set by the current font size. At a font size of $S$ typographic points, one em is $S$ typographic points long.^[ref] A scalable computer font describes its geometry relative to this scale. In OpenType, unitsPerEm specifies how many font units make one em.^[ref]

Suppose one em contains 2048 font units. A design length of 1024 font units is half an em. At a font size of 12 typographic points, that length is 6 typographic points; at 18 typographic points, it is 9 typographic points. The stored coordinate has not changed; the scale has.

The word em does not require the glyph for “M” to be exactly one em wide. Nor is an em the measured ink height of every glyph: a shape can occupy only part of the nominal square or extend beyond it.^[ref] Glyph advances, left side bearings and right side bearings must consequently be read from the computer font's metrics rather than inferred from the em alone.

Typographic leading concerns vertical spacing between lines of type. The term comes from the thin lead spacers used to separate lines of metal type. In current discussion, one must establish whether a quoted value means the complete spacing between text baselines or an additional allowance beyond the chosen font ascent and font descent.^[ref]

CSS leading uses the additional-allowance convention. If a single font contributes ascent $A$ and descent magnitude $D$, and the chosen line height is $H$, thenThe elementary inline-box construction allocates half of $L$ above the ascent and half below the descent. These quantities are font-wide metrics, rather than the actual ink bounding box of each glyph.^[ref]

For hypothetical metrics $A=11$, $D=3$ and $H=18$ CSS pixels, the extra leading is 4 CSS pixels, with 2 on each side. If the same metrics use $H=12$, then $L=-2$: the allocated line region is smaller than the metric extent. Negative CSS leading is allowed, so visible ink can extend outside its line allocation. A line height value must consequently be interpreted together with the font and the layout convention.

The x-height is the height of the main lowercase body of a typeface, conventionally associated with the letter “x”. It excludes the extra extent of ascenders and descenders; the cap height describes a different reference. Small optical overshoots mean that not every lowercase outline without an ascender has exactly the same ink height.^[ref]

Write $r$ for the x-height as a fraction of an em. At nominal scale $p$ pixels per em, its ideal scaled height is $rp$ pixels, before grid fitting. Equal font sizes do not force equal $r$, so changing the typeface can alter the apparent lowercase size.

To preserve a target height $h$ while switching to a design with ratio $r_2>0$, choose $p_2=h/r_2$. If the original ratio was $r_1$ at scale $p_1$, this becomesFor a hypothetical switch from $r_1=0.5$ at 16 pixels per em to $r_2=0.4$, the matching scale is 20 pixels per em. Both lowercase bodies then have ideal height 8 pixels. This is the geometry behind metric-based font-size adjustment when a fallback font replaces another.^[ref]