oh, I completely misunderstood your question, Phil. The answer is: none. It's a rendering artefact.
Dominik On 2 October 2011 23:47, Zdenek Wagner <zdenek.wag...@gmail.com> wrote: > 2011/10/2 Philip TAYLOR (Webmaster, Ret'd) <p.tay...@rhul.ac.uk>: > > > > > > Cyril Niklaus wrote: > > > >> Because that's how his name is spelled. You have guttural, palatal, > >> retroflex and dental n in Devanāgarī, respectively ङ ṅa > >> ; ञ ña; ण ṇa and न na. > > > > Yes, but all "n" variants are normally the same size, modulo the > diacritics. > > > Its not so uncommon that two fonts with the same design size have > different x-height. If your computer has to select one character from > a different font because it does not exist in your main font, such > discrepancies can be expected. At my computer ṅ appears lower. I do > not know where fonconfig takes it from, probably from the John Smith's > fonts. > > >> The guttural na is transcribed using a superscript dot, but maybe you do > >> not have it in a standard font, and your MUA used whatever font was > >> available, therefore this extra height you're talking about. I'm not > sure > >> if I've correctly understood you, to be honest. > > > > Agreed : I have changed my font preferences for "Other languages" > > (odd way of having to tell it which font to use for UTF-8 !), > > and now all four n variants are the same height. > > > > Philip Taylor > > > > > > -------------------------------------------------- > > Subscriptions, Archive, and List information, etc.: > > http://tug.org/mailman/listinfo/xetex > > > > > > -- > Zdeněk Wagner > http://hroch486.icpf.cas.cz/wagner/ > http://icebearsoft.euweb.cz > > > > -------------------------------------------------- > Subscriptions, Archive, and List information, etc.: > http://tug.org/mailman/listinfo/xetex >
-------------------------------------------------- Subscriptions, Archive, and List information, etc.: http://tug.org/mailman/listinfo/xetex