GNU bug report logs -
#54562
28.0.91; Emoji sequence not composed
Previous Next
Full log
Message #134 received at 54562 <at> debbugs.gnu.org (full text, mbox):
>>>>> On Tue, 29 Mar 2022 14:44:47 +0300, Eli Zaretskii <eliz <at> gnu.org> said:
>> From: Robert Pluim <rpluim <at> gmail.com>
>> Cc: luangruo <at> yahoo.com, larsi <at> gnus.org, 54562 <at> debbugs.gnu.org
>> Date: Tue, 29 Mar 2022 12:45:44 +0200
>>
Eli> I thought about any Mn character whose canonical-combining-class
Eli> property is 200 and above. The COMBINING ENCLOSING <SOMETHING> stuff
Eli> will need to be added to that, of course. And we could have that
Eli> option have multiple possible values, not just on/off...
>>
>> OK. Would Me be ok for you, or would you specifically want only the
>> codepoints from the "Combining Diacritical Marks for Symbols" block?
Eli> Using Me is fine with me.
OK. There are probably subtleties surrounding things like U+20D2 that
I need to read up on (or we say "overlays are deprecated, letʼs ignore
them").
>> I guess you'd want options like:
>>
>> 'all => combining-class + enclosing
>> 'enclosing
>> 'combining-class
>>
>> (did we want to cover the 'number followed U+20E3 => emoji' case with
>> an option too?)
Eli> That's a separate issue, IMO, and it can be handled via
Eli> auto-composition-emoji-eligible-codepoints, I think? We could even
Eli> tell users to do that by themselves.
We could, although my purist side doesnʼt want to do it, since the
standard exists for a reason, dammit.
Eli> We could perhaps avoid the complexity by rewriting the composition
Eli> rule for diacritics. Instead of "\\c.\\c^+" with 1-character
Eli> look-back, we could have several rules:
Eli> "\\c.\\c^\\c^\\c^\\c^" with 4-character look-back
Eli> "\\c.\\c^\\c^\\c^+" with 3-character look-back
Eli> "\\c.\\c^\\c^+" with 2-character look-back
Eli> "\\c.\\c^+" with 1-character look-back
Eli> (in that order). I didn't test this, but if it works, maybe it could
Eli> solve the problem without any deep changes on the C level.
That might work. What would the fallback look like? Suppose we have 4
diacritics, 3 of which are covered by the same font, and one by a
different one. Would you prefer to attempt to use the font of 3 of
them, or would you prefer to fall back to the font of the base
character? (Iʼm not sure which would give better results in practice,
they might both fail)
Robert
--
This bug report was last modified 3 years and 175 days ago.
Previous Next
GNU bug tracking system
Copyright (C) 1999 Darren O. Benham,
1997,2003 nCipher Corporation Ltd,
1994-97 Ian Jackson.