On the one hand there are recommendations for proper shapes of glyphs or accents rooted in language specific typography. On the other hand growing glyph sets of OpenType fonts and international use of fonts suggest that one better find shapes which please everybody, or at least, an imaginary majority.
It is not that much of a contradiction as my words suggest -- one can still add alternate forms. Yet I think that these will only address specific languages (so fonts are just as suited for particular languages as the individual type designer's knowledge goes) and add complexity to fonts.
(My own current position is that one should go for internationalization of forms and give up certain national peculiarities.)
I would like to hear your opinions on ...
-- proper positioning of acute and grave: rather steep and start at the horizontal visual center on the base glyph? rather flat and lying on the base glyph?
-- vertical alignment of accents: vertically centered? their x-minimums aligned?
-- proper shape of the uppercase Aring: (traditional) connected form? unconnected since Uring joined the glyph set so that it makes sense to treat them similarly (rather than connecting one but not the other)?
-- ogoneks and cedillas: connected? unconnected?
... and others!