From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.io!.POSTED.ciao.gmane.io!not-for-mail From: Eli Zaretskii Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.bugs Subject: bug#39799: 28.0.50; Most emoji sequences =?UTF-8?Q?don=E2=80=99t?= render correctly Date: Sat, 29 Feb 2020 13:19:39 +0200 Message-ID: <83imjpej3o.fsf@gnu.org> References: <83lfongp4p.fsf@gnu.org> <835zfrglu5.fsf@gnu.org> <83wo86g8pg.fsf@gnu.org> <83k146g46x.fsf@gnu.org> <83imjqg1iv.fsf@gnu.org> <83a752fp2d.fsf@gnu.org> <8336aufn4h.fsf@gnu.org> <83v9nqe5x2.fsf@gnu.org> <83lfolena2.fsf@gnu.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Injection-Info: ciao.gmane.io; posting-host="ciao.gmane.io:159.69.161.202"; logging-data="70499"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@ciao.gmane.io" Cc: rpluim@gmail.com, 39799@debbugs.gnu.org To: Mike FABIAN Original-X-From: bug-gnu-emacs-bounces+geb-bug-gnu-emacs=m.gmane-mx.org@gnu.org Sat Feb 29 12:20:12 2020 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 1j80AG-000IEW-CD for geb-bug-gnu-emacs@m.gmane-mx.org; Sat, 29 Feb 2020 12:20:12 +0100 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1]:59454 helo=lists1p.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1j80AF-0006Sv-DJ for geb-bug-gnu-emacs@m.gmane-mx.org; Sat, 29 Feb 2020 06:20:11 -0500 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:470:142:3::10]:52431) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1j80A8-0006Sa-2M for bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Sat, 29 Feb 2020 06:20:05 -0500 Original-Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1j80A6-0001ff-Rd for bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Sat, 29 Feb 2020 06:20:03 -0500 Original-Received: from debbugs.gnu.org ([209.51.188.43]:56559) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.0:RSA_AES_128_CBC_SHA1:16) (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1j80A6-0001fZ-O9 for bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Sat, 29 Feb 2020 06:20:02 -0500 Original-Received: from Debian-debbugs by debbugs.gnu.org with local (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1j80A6-0004EO-JF for bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Sat, 29 Feb 2020 06:20:02 -0500 X-Loop: help-debbugs@gnu.org Resent-From: Eli Zaretskii Original-Sender: "Debbugs-submit" Resent-CC: bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org Resent-Date: Sat, 29 Feb 2020 11:20:02 +0000 Resent-Message-ID: Resent-Sender: help-debbugs@gnu.org X-GNU-PR-Message: followup 39799 X-GNU-PR-Package: emacs Original-Received: via spool by 39799-submit@debbugs.gnu.org id=B39799.158297519916247 (code B ref 39799); Sat, 29 Feb 2020 11:20:02 +0000 Original-Received: (at 39799) by debbugs.gnu.org; 29 Feb 2020 11:19:59 +0000 Original-Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:34299 helo=debbugs.gnu.org) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1j80A2-0004Dx-R8 for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Sat, 29 Feb 2020 06:19:59 -0500 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([209.51.188.92]:37283) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1j80A0-0004Di-U2 for 39799@debbugs.gnu.org; Sat, 29 Feb 2020 06:19:57 -0500 Original-Received: from fencepost.gnu.org ([2001:470:142:3::e]:59170) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1j809v-0001aG-Ol; Sat, 29 Feb 2020 06:19:51 -0500 Original-Received: from [176.228.60.248] (port=2348 helo=home-c4e4a596f7) by fencepost.gnu.org with esmtpsa (TLS1.2:RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA1:256) (Exim 4.82) (envelope-from ) id 1j809u-00024k-Tf; Sat, 29 Feb 2020 06:19:51 -0500 In-reply-to: (message from Mike FABIAN on Sat, 29 Feb 2020 11:26:11 +0100) X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: GNU/Linux 2.2.x-3.x [generic] X-BeenThere: debbugs-submit@debbugs.gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.18 Precedence: list X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: GNU/Linux 2.2.x-3.x [generic] X-Received-From: 209.51.188.43 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:176668 Archived-At: > From: Mike FABIAN > Cc: rpluim@gmail.com, 39799@debbugs.gnu.org > Date: Sat, 29 Feb 2020 11:26:11 +0100 > > If I understand it correctly, with the current implementation in Emacs, > it would work if a font had glyphs for both variation selectors. > > I.e. if there was a font which had a colour glyph for > > 24C2 FE0F ; emoji style; # (1.1) CIRCLED LATIN CAPITAL LETTER M > > *and* a black and white glyph for > > 24C2 FE0E ; text style; # (1.1) CIRCLED LATIN CAPITAL LETTER M > > Then it would work in Emacs and 24C2 FE0F would display in colour > and 24C2 FE0E in black and white. Yes, in that case Emacs will display both sequences using the same font. > But there are no such fonts (yet??). Symbola doesn’t support the > variation selectors at all, i.e. when using Symbola > > (set-fontset-font nil '(#x2460 . #x24FF) '("Symbola" . "iso10646-1") nil 'prepend) > > one gets the three variants > > Ⓜ U+24C2 > Ⓜ︎ U+24C2 U+FE0E > Ⓜ️ U+24C2 U+FE0F > > all in black and white and for the two variants which have the variation > selectors one sees a narrow box in Emacs. > > When using “Noto Color Emoji” or “Joypixels”, one gets all three > variants in colour, and a box is only shown for the line in the middle > with the U+FE0E text style selector because neither “Noto Color Emoji” > nor “Joypixels” seem to implement that one. The emoji style selector > U+FE0F does not show a box though, if I understand you correctly that > means that apparently both “Noto Color Emoji” and “Joypixels” implement > the U+FE0F variation selector. OK, but then characters such as Ⓜ U+24C2 are supposed to be displayed in their text presentation by default, so the sequence Ⓜ︎ U+24C2 U+FE0E seems redundant, as it should display the same as just Ⓜ U+24C2. So this is not such a big loss for Emacs: you could use a font which supports only the Ⓜ️ U+24C2 U+FE0F sequence, and use just Ⓜ U+24C2 for the text presentation. > If I paste these 3 lines into gedit (or anything else which uses pango > for this) I see that different fonts are used. Can also be seen with > > pango-view --font="DejaVu Sans" ~/emoji-representation-test.txt You could have the same in Emacs if you define a special face that uses the other font, and then put that face on the sequence which isn't composed using the font selected by Emacs. > (I attached the emoji-representation-test.txt file and how it is > displayed by pango-view). I see only a small image showing the font name, and nothing else. Some problem with sending the attachment? > I specified the DejaVu Sans font on the command line (which is used for > the ASCII text in that screenshot. For the emoji, different fonts are > used, on my system where I made that screenshot it happens to be the > font “MS Gothic” for the emoji in the first two lines and “Noto Color > Emoji” for the last line. So pango uses different fonts for a text > representation emoji sequence than for emoji representation. Like I said, we need a more detailed understanding of how the font is selected by Pango in these cases.