3 ms·
I think you missed the point of the OP? Let's try it https://jsfiddle.net/7ysgdpf2/ https://jsfiddle.net/7ysgdpf2/ Failed for Arabic, Sanskrit, Telugu. I'm on
by asiachick 6y ago
I think you missed the point of the OP? Let's try it
https://jsfiddle.net/7ysgdpf2/ https://jsfiddle.net/7ysgdpf2/
Failed for Arabic, Sanskrit, Telugu. I'm only guessing those languages are not easily writable with fixed size units
- jfk13 6y agoWhether it'll work or not for the various non-Latin scripts will depend what fallback fonts the browser happens to pick, so people's results will vary. Your jsfiddle also fails even for English in most browsers, because you didn't load both regular and bold weights of Recursive. As a result, you get a browser-generated synthetic bold effect, which varies between browsers and in most cases (but not Chrome, IIRC) will alter the width. (To fix that aspect, you need something like "family=Recursive:wght@400;700" in your Google Fonts link.)
- leephillips 6y agoThe jsfiddle shows it working perfectly in my browser.
- asiachick 6y agoThis is what I see https://pasteboard.co/JM3MBN4.png https://pasteboard.co/JM3MBN4.png For it to have worked each pair of lines should be the same width. They are not. Tested on MacOS 11.1 Safari, Firefox, Chrome and Windows 10, Firefox, Chrome. All failed.
- leephillips 6y agoInteresting. It renders in a width-invariant way on my machine (chromium on Ubuntu).
- FreeFull 6y agoIn this case, the problem is that the Recursive font doesn't actually contain the Arabic and Japanese characters, so the browser is falling back to another font. If you use a uniwidth font that actually contains all the characters, this should work.