On Wed, Oct 14, 2020 at 04:30:48AM -0400, James Cloos wrote:
> >>>>> "LI" == Lars Ingebrigtsen <larsi@gnus.org> writes:
> 
> LI> There seemed to be some claims that even totally numerical elements
> LI> (that doesn't change the number of digits) also leads to shifts that'll
> LI> have to be handled (like display-time-mode), and that just isn't lining
> LI> up with my experiences.
> 
> Opentype offers both fixed width and proportional digits (not to mention
> oldstyle).

Fixed width digits do make sense: often you want more than just aligning
a numerical "field" -- you'd like the individual digits to align. This
is an issue at least as old as Metafont (at least whithin our digital
bubble, I'm sure the lead-and-ink typesetters were well aware of that!).

Let's call those fonts the "normal" fonts (with a tip off the hat to
Russel's paradox ;-)

The question here is whether there is a space the width of a digit (for
"normal fonts", that is).

It seems Unicode has a place for that:  U+2007 aka FIGURE SPACE. Whether
those fonts implement that is left as an exercise...

Me? I use fixed fonts on-screen. Actually my eyes very much prefer them.
This might be the result of acclimatisation.

Cheers
 - t