4 ms·
If you're going to use the term 'invariant' then 'width-invariant' is a bit unfortunate as that seems to imply it is invariant w.r.t. width, rather than that th
by contravariant 6y ago
If you're going to use the term 'invariant' then 'width-invariant' is a bit unfortunate as that seems to imply it is invariant w.r.t. width, rather than that the width itself is invariant w.r.t. something else.
The most 'correct' version would be 'font with weight-invariant width', but that's a bit long.