# Odd allocation of diacritic marks in Linux Libertine

Maybe it is just me (I don't think so, though), but the placement of the diacritic marks in the otherwise wonderful Linux Libertine fonts is quite at odds with any well-informed typographic sensibility. Please do not take my remarks in a derogatory sense, since my intention is just stressing what I think is a most significant blunder which should be corrected -- and I don't think the correction means too much work.

Try compiling with pdfLaTeX the following MWE:

\documentclass{memoir}
\usepackage[mono,semibold]{libertine}

\def\vowels{\'a\'e\'i\'o\'u}

\begin{document}
Testing diacritic marks with Linux Libertine and Biolinum Type1:
\par\vowels
\par\textsc{\vowels}
\par\texttt{\vowels}
\end{document}

The issue is twofold and appears more clearly in the small caps and monospaced families: too large a vertical shift -- which is even sharper in the monospaced family -- and having the marks centered on the same vertical axis as the base glyphs, while they should be shifted rightwards. Just take a look at MinionPro or another good typeface design of your own choice and check the difference.

My intention is to bring this to the attention of the TeX community in order to see if there are other people who agree on my judgment and this can be fixed... unless it turns out to be just some issue of my own system.

-
it might have something to do with the version of libertine you are using. Because here, neither libertine-type1, nor libertine-legacy has a mono option. –  mafp Jan 18 '13 at 13:01
Have you seen the related question MiKTeX 2.9 libertine suddenly broken? –  Kurt Jan 18 '13 at 13:13
The package is called simply libertine. It is the most recent version -- or so I believe, since it is dated January 2013. The related question doesn't seem to have anything to do with mine. Your comments are welcome, though. –  Marcos Jan 18 '13 at 14:23
It's a problem in the font design. –  egreg Jan 19 '13 at 10:21
The horizontal issue is in the design. The vertical issues are likely from the way the accented characters are composed by otftotfm, but possibly because some font parameters are incorrect. –  user22108 Jan 19 '13 at 21:17