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.devel Subject: Re: Better emoji support Date: Mon, 20 Sep 2021 16:15:10 +0300 Message-ID: <83lf3r1j8h.fsf@gnu.org> References: <834kd2cypw.fsf@gnu.org> <87zguuttbm.fsf@gmail.com> <8335smcxx6.fsf@gnu.org> <87v95itsc4.fsf@gmail.com> <831r86cxdy.fsf@gnu.org> <83a6kgejp0.fsf@gnu.org> <87wnnkpjj9.fsf@gmail.com> <3E0155F6-D681-4443-A1D9-472D1836168D@traduction-libre.org> <87bl4rnyoe.fsf@gmail.com> <877dffnwf5.fsf@gmail.com> <875yuzciaf.fsf@gmail.com> <87tuijm9uy.fsf@gmail.com> <87lf3v2dz4.fsf@gmail.com> <87ilywl8tx.fsf@gmail.com> <877dfcz6zu.fsf@gmail.com> <83mto73mem.fsf@gnu.org> <87ee9jhint.fsf@gmail.com> <838rzr3fhm.fsf@gnu.org> <87h7efk5c3.fsf@gmail.com> <83y27r1sku.fsf@gnu.org> <87czp3jt5z.fsf@gmail.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Injection-Info: ciao.gmane.io; posting-host="blaine.gmane.org:116.202.254.214"; logging-data="28322"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@ciao.gmane.io" Cc: kevin.legouguec@gmail.com, emacs-devel@gnu.org To: Robert Pluim Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane-mx.org@gnu.org Mon Sep 20 15:18:08 2021 Return-path: Envelope-to: ged-emacs-devel@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 1mSJBQ-00077S-Fz for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane-mx.org; Mon, 20 Sep 2021 15:18:08 +0200 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1]:36460 helo=lists1p.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1mSJBO-0005IB-M4 for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane-mx.org; Mon, 20 Sep 2021 09:18:06 -0400 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:470:142:3::10]:49534) by lists.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1mSJ8x-0003AK-Ge for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Mon, 20 Sep 2021 09:15:36 -0400 Original-Received: from fencepost.gnu.org ([2001:470:142:3::e]:59118) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1mSJ8x-0007RY-5H; Mon, 20 Sep 2021 09:15:35 -0400 Original-Received: from 84.94.185.95.cable.012.net.il ([84.94.185.95]:4719 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 1mSJ8i-00033K-50; Mon, 20 Sep 2021 09:15:34 -0400 In-Reply-To: <87czp3jt5z.fsf@gmail.com> (message from Robert Pluim on Mon, 20 Sep 2021 15:03:20 +0200) X-BeenThere: emacs-devel@gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.23 Precedence: list List-Id: "Emacs development discussions." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane-mx.org@gnu.org Original-Sender: "Emacs-devel" Xref: news.gmane.io gmane.emacs.devel:275129 Archived-At: > From: Robert Pluim > Cc: emacs-devel@gnu.org, kevin.legouguec@gmail.com > Date: Mon, 20 Sep 2021 15:03:20 +0200 > > OK. Whilst updating the emoji sequences support to Unicode-14, I had > to add the following ranges to the 'emoji' script, since otherwise > they donʼt end up getting composed, because Emacs doesnʼt use the > 'emoji' font for them. Theyʼre all Emoji_Presentation=No, but > emoji-zwj-sequences.txt modifies them with FE0F > > (why didnʼt they just change them to Emoji_Presentation=Yes? I see > very little consistency between similar codepoints that nonetheless > have different Emoji_Presentation values) It has something to do with text segmentation, although I don't entirely understand what exactly and how. What confuses me is that a lot of symbols are also in that category, and we definitely don't want to treat them as emoji. > (#x26F9 #x26F9 emoji) > (#x2764 #x2764 emoji) > (#x1f3cb #x1f3cc emoji) > (#x1f3f3 #x1f3f4 emoji) > (#x1f441 #x1f441 emoji) > (#x1f575 #x1f575 emoji) > > So we get to pick our poison: complete consistency with the > Emoji_Presentation property from emoji-data.txt, or having complete > coverage for emoji-zwj-sequences.txt. Eli? (Iʼll admit to having a > slight preference for the latter, given that I find Emoji_Presentation > to be somewhat arbitrary for quite a few codepoints) I agree: we should use the latter, at least for now. Thanks.