bmono VS Junicode-font

Bmono font.

It's Bmono

Font: Bmono

This tutorial shows you how to build a font with Iosevka-customize-build and three lines of command, this is also how i made Bmono.

One thing came to mind for a Bembo-like typeface that supports medieval glyphs is Junicode. It has all of the four and even has an alt look for eth, thorn, and yogh. Test them here.

Junicode -- for Medievalists!!

You could try Junicode The font aims to have a lot of these niche unencoded glyphs in it for use when Unicode compliment fonts are lacking. Even if that character is not currently in the font, you could make a request for it. Admittedly there appears to be a development hiatus at the moment, but if you can wait then it would be the best looking option.

An important thing to note is that Unicode may not be able to cover everything you come across. Thankfully, though, there are resources for people in your situation. The Medieval Unicode Font Initiative is the central authority on allocating private use area code points to get some standardization in the presentation of nonstandard glyphs. It will require a specialized font to work, and won’t be the most portable, though. If you are willing to stray further from standard, I’d highly recommend checking out Junicode 2. It’s a singular font which further builds off of MUFI efforts, creating more or less it’s own standard, but also has features to keep documents from becoming unusable in the case that the font can’t be transferred alongside the text. What’s more, the font is under active development and accepting new glyph requests. While it may take some time to get the new glyphs you need added, considering the whole thing is being made by one person for free, I’d say it’s a pretty good deal.

From what I recall, they stopped creating precomposed glyphs with diacritics shortly after the mess that was polytonic Greek. It should become abundantly clear why if you look at the code charts. Anyways, font authors can adjust diacritics to make them look as good as a precomposed glyph (or even just have custom precomposed glyph ligatures). If you can find historical reason for such a glyph being used then putting a request in at the Junicode font github would likely be your best bet to have as good a representation for it as possible in a font.

This should technically be supported by Uode, but you will need either a really good font or to do some tweaking. Even the great Junicode, which is ideal for most combining mark related work. For a proper solution, you can submit an issue about the acute anchor position when combined with double combining marks. In the meantime, if you are forced to used plaintext, the best possible is (u͡​́ọ). How ugly it looks will depend largely on what fonts and rendering engine is involved, but it is guaranteed to not look great. For a better, albeit still hacky solution, if you use LuaTeX, the following should both work. (u\char"0361\raisebox{0.5ex}{\char"0301}o\char"0323) (u\char"0361{\hidewidth\kern.15em\raisebox{0.5ex}{\char"0301}\hidewidth}o\char"0323) The first one is simpler, while the second one includes a slight offset for italic correction. It may not be perfect, but it works.

Junicode (formerly JuniusX) is straight amazing. Currently developing on variable font it seems.