From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.io!.POSTED.blaine.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Eli Zaretskii Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.bugs Subject: bug#54562: 28.0.91; Emoji sequence not composed Date: Mon, 28 Mar 2022 14:51:49 +0300 Message-ID: <838rsu9twq.fsf@gnu.org> References: <87bkxu8k7t.fsf.ref@yahoo.com> <87bkxu8k7t.fsf@yahoo.com> <83wngiba3j.fsf@gnu.org> <874k3m8grb.fsf@yahoo.com> <87pmmauwtp.fsf@gmail.com> <87y20y6ypi.fsf@yahoo.com> <83pmmab53s.fsf@gnu.org> <87sfr66sb7.fsf@yahoo.com> <87a6deunjj.fsf@gmail.com> <87k0ch5x8k.fsf@yahoo.com> <83h77lb6km.fsf@gnu.org> <871qyod5d5.fsf@gnus.org> <87zglc2q14.fsf@yahoo.com> <87y20vtor6.fsf@gmail.com> <87a6db2ajo.fsf@yahoo.com> <87mthatt5h.fsf@gmail.com> Injection-Info: ciao.gmane.io; posting-host="blaine.gmane.org:116.202.254.214"; logging-data="10018"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@ciao.gmane.io" Cc: luangruo@yahoo.com, larsi@gnus.org, 54562@debbugs.gnu.org To: Robert Pluim Original-X-From: bug-gnu-emacs-bounces+geb-bug-gnu-emacs=m.gmane-mx.org@gnu.org Mon Mar 28 13:52:47 2022 Return-path: Envelope-to: geb-bug-gnu-emacs@m.gmane-mx.org Original-Received: from lists.gnu.org ([209.51.188.17]) by ciao.gmane.io with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.92) (envelope-from ) id 1nYnvT-0002UH-4Y for geb-bug-gnu-emacs@m.gmane-mx.org; Mon, 28 Mar 2022 13:52:47 +0200 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1]:52122 helo=lists1p.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1nYnvR-0004vm-Pe for geb-bug-gnu-emacs@m.gmane-mx.org; Mon, 28 Mar 2022 07:52:45 -0400 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([209.51.188.92]:34242) by lists.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1nYnuk-0004sS-0B for bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Mon, 28 Mar 2022 07:52:03 -0400 Original-Received: from debbugs.gnu.org ([209.51.188.43]:35270) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_128_GCM_SHA256:128) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1nYnuj-00072p-Nt for bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Mon, 28 Mar 2022 07:52:01 -0400 Original-Received: from Debian-debbugs by debbugs.gnu.org with local (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1nYnuj-0005HS-Lr for bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Mon, 28 Mar 2022 07:52:01 -0400 X-Loop: help-debbugs@gnu.org Resent-From: Eli Zaretskii Original-Sender: "Debbugs-submit" Resent-CC: bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org Resent-Date: Mon, 28 Mar 2022 11:52:01 +0000 Resent-Message-ID: Resent-Sender: help-debbugs@gnu.org X-GNU-PR-Message: followup 54562 X-GNU-PR-Package: emacs Original-Received: via spool by 54562-submit@debbugs.gnu.org id=B54562.164846831620287 (code B ref 54562); Mon, 28 Mar 2022 11:52:01 +0000 Original-Received: (at 54562) by debbugs.gnu.org; 28 Mar 2022 11:51:56 +0000 Original-Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:57400 helo=debbugs.gnu.org) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1nYnue-0005H9-Jb for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Mon, 28 Mar 2022 07:51:56 -0400 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([209.51.188.92]:46528) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1nYnuc-0005Gx-P8 for 54562@debbugs.gnu.org; Mon, 28 Mar 2022 07:51:55 -0400 Original-Received: from [2001:470:142:3::e] (port=33774 helo=fencepost.gnu.org) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1nYnuW-00072J-00; Mon, 28 Mar 2022 07:51:48 -0400 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gnu.org; s=fencepost-gnu-org; h=References:Subject:In-Reply-To:To:From:Date: mime-version; bh=XhcwI5u0+bW3kNUw7XfDeHWYdNWu6Whw/kz8W88XTog=; b=QuamqYKdnayM GrfcrHCvCwsiSocXUQa8vu1abBB+NCX+7oKtCJNzqHlyAaLM3tGWAxDLZGnmr5UXi/PRdiPEBabCt Tfi8Pi6PGJBK9y1XkzLk//Pjm5YlE8VmPsXw1Ca/kAcdSf29unrTmRr/+kHq7xjYF4bkmDI00LoIn rVzGyW3ke/eapHzsJVxoB18IOOtXNxxRKz+reg7Nb/tLswDC+K5Thr0F5UQmd/zhVHYmD5a6K8+x1 qjTx/2LFoZCB4kkVo17KWo1lPSrNenKRGVRhj+Qft/klWGJ9DG5x02h+2QTgVKJmuOnwcTfSvQpox 461E2V//LMGpgQ2C7HpwPA==; Original-Received: from [87.69.77.57] (port=4454 helo=home-c4e4a596f7) by fencepost.gnu.org with esmtpsa (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1nYnuV-0003TQ-Al; Mon, 28 Mar 2022 07:51:47 -0400 In-Reply-To: <87mthatt5h.fsf@gmail.com> (message from Robert Pluim on Mon, 28 Mar 2022 09:47:54 +0200) X-BeenThere: debbugs-submit@debbugs.gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.18 Precedence: list X-BeenThere: bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org List-Id: "Bug reports for GNU Emacs, the Swiss army knife of text editors" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: bug-gnu-emacs-bounces+geb-bug-gnu-emacs=m.gmane-mx.org@gnu.org Original-Sender: "bug-gnu-emacs" Xref: news.gmane.io gmane.emacs.bugs:229007 Archived-At: > From: Robert Pluim > Cc: Lars Ingebrigtsen , 54562@debbugs.gnu.org, Eli > Zaretskii > Date: Mon, 28 Mar 2022 09:47:54 +0200 > > OK. So it sounds like we should perhaps look at doing composition for > the codepoints in that block by doing face lookup based on the > combining character rather than the base character. I guess we should try. It should be optional behavior, because Emacs never did that, and I cannot predict what will that do to all the different use cases where we compose text, and thus whether users will like that in all the cases. It could, for example, mean that a particular Latin character with a diacritic will be displayed with a font that's different from the rest of the Latin text, which some users might consider worse than seeing just the base character in the "expected" font. And that's just the simplest use case. And I think "based on combining character" is not the correct definition. We should allow selection of the font based on the character that triggered the composition, i.e. the character whose slot in composition-function-table stores the rule which we are using to produce the composition. Like we already do for Emoji. For combining characters, the default is that the combining character is that trigger. By contrast, today we use the font for the first character in the composition sequence (NOT the base character, as I incorrectly wrote earlier, although in practice it is the same for Latin). > Eli, should we look at doing that for other combining characters, > such as Andreas' 0308? "Look at" in what sense?