GNU bug report logs - #20727
24.5; Font fallback doesn't work for the Emoji range

Previous Next

Package: emacs;

Reported by: Vasilij Schneidermann <v.schneidermann <at> gmail.com>

Date: Wed, 3 Jun 2015 17:23:01 UTC

Severity: normal

Tags: confirmed

Found in version 24.5

Done: Eli Zaretskii <eliz <at> gnu.org>

Bug is archived. No further changes may be made.

Full log


View this message in rfc822 format

From: Paul Eggert <eggert <at> cs.ucla.edu>
To: Eli Zaretskii <eliz <at> gnu.org>
Cc: v.schneidermann <at> gmail.com, andrewjmoreton <at> gmail.com, 20727 <at> debbugs.gnu.org
Subject: bug#20727: 24.5; Font fallback doesn't work for the Emoji range
Date: Sat, 13 Jun 2015 11:47:07 -0700
Eli Zaretskii wrote:

> I think you are judging by characters that are sufficiently well
> covered.  Try Emoji (something in the range U+1F600 to U+1F64F), which
> was the trigger for this bug and my changes, or Enclosed Alphanumerics
> (U+1F100 to U+1F1FFF), for example.  Or even Supplemental Punctuation
> (u+2E00 to u+2E7F) or Currency Symbols (u+20A0 to u+20CF).  What I see
> on my system is that several fonts claim coverage, but typically
> support just a few characters, sometimes just one.  That's the problem
> I was trying to avoid.

I tried the 8 specific characters that you mentioned (the endpoints of the 
ranges) with emacs -Q, and found that in my environment Symbola looked way 
better with U+1F600, U+1F64F, U+1F100 (where older Emacs just displays hex codes 
in boxes), that Symbola looks a bit worse with U+2E00 and U+20A0 (where older 
Emacs uses FreeSerif which better matches the FreeSerif characters elsewhere in 
the buffer), and that both fonts look bad (hex boxes) with U+1F1FFF, U+2E7F, 
U+20CF (as they're unassigned).





This bug report was last modified 10 years and 30 days ago.

Previous Next


GNU bug tracking system
Copyright (C) 1999 Darren O. Benham, 1997,2003 nCipher Corporation Ltd, 1994-97 Ian Jackson.