Quote:
Originally Posted by lumpynose
It was Literata Book, not Literata. Its version was 2.002 or somesuch, while on fonts.google.com the version is 2.201 and there the name is Literata. I'm guessing that I got Literata Book from fontsquirrel.com.
|
Update your font and see if that works. Like mentioned, these errors sometimes slip through when font-designers are trying to fix bugs.
Quote:
Originally Posted by lumpynose
It's what's used in the book. Is it preferable to use 1/2 instead of ½?
|
Yes, standalone numbers are much more compatible than Vulgar Fractions. The biggest advantages are:
- They're supported on all fonts
- Easier to read (think font size)
- Consistent look
- Easier to Search
Vulgar Fractions have quite a few disadvantages (some are listed in this article):
http://www.personal.psu.edu/ejp10/bl...unicode-1.html
But the biggest disadvantage in my experience is: What if you need one that isn't included?
Here's a list of Vulgar Fractions in Unicode:
http://www.fileformat.info/info/unic...preview=entity
Unicode has the "most common" basic fractions like 1/2, 1/4, 3/4... but Font support is also very shaky once you get beyond the most basic. On my computer, ~230 fonts include ¼, but only 82 have ⅞.
Remember, people are going to be reading this on ereaders with all different types of fonts.
Also, when you need a 1/12 or 1/100 or 4/3... all of a sudden vulgar fractions will look one way, while normal fractions look another way.
* * *
If you still want the "vulgar look", it's better to implement this via OpenType
frac and CSS:
https://helpx.adobe.com/fonts/using/...ntax.html#frac
but even this, support is going to be lacking in many Fonts/Readers/Tools.
Side Note: And whatever you do, don't try to hack together fractions as superscripts/subscripts:
Code:
<sup>1</sup>/<sub>2</sub>
And DEFINITELY don't ever use Unicode's superscript digits. For more info on that, see
my post in "font with full super/under script support?"