Monospaced font, in which all glyphs, including marks are width 600.
There are two different issues/questions here:
- The combining marks, when exported, end up with a 0 width instead of the original 600, even those that start with comb in their name, e.g., breveinvertedcomb.
The .case versions keep their width of 600. In a monospaced font, I’d expect them to stay the same; in a proportional font, I’d make them 0 width.
I was trying to find solid info on the recommendation for the width of combining marks when in a monospaced font. One mention by John Hudson from 2009 is here: http://www.typophile.com/node/61330#comment-363963
Or, has the recommendation for monospaced fonts changed?
- Are the mark and mkmk features built automatically, including for the .case variants for uppercase letters? Or do I need to add the positioning features for the .case variants, for now?
A quick test seemed to use the non .case variant and had the combining mark and uppercase glyph overlap. The blog post on Mark to Base Positioning:
seems to indicate that some of the features are generated automatically, now, but didn’t include mention of the .case variants.
[ I’ll admit that I haven’t yet pulled apart the mark features in the exported font to review, yet. So more testing may show what’s needed here. ]