GNU bug report logs - #63731
[PATCH] Support Emoji Variation Sequence 16 (FE0F) where appropriate

Previous Next

Full log

Message #171 received at 63731 <at> debbugs.gnu.org (full text, mbox):

From: Robert Pluim <rpluim <at> gmail.com>
To: Eli Zaretskii <eliz <at> gnu.org>
Cc: 63731 <at> debbugs.gnu.org, steven <at> stebalien.com
Subject: Re: bug#63731: [PATCH] Support Emoji Variation Sequence 16 (FE0F)
 where appropriate
Date: Mon, 05 Jun 2023 17:57:04 +0200

>>>>> On Mon, 05 Jun 2023 18:35:37 +0300, Eli Zaretskii <eliz <at> gnu.org> said:

    >> From: Robert Pluim <rpluim <at> gmail.com>
    >> Cc: 63731 <at> debbugs.gnu.org,  steven <at> stebalien.com
    >> Date: Mon, 05 Jun 2023 16:27:28 +0200
    >> 
    Eli> Hmm... I though just changing the fontset in fontset.el would be
    Eli> enough.
    >> 
    >> Itʼs almost enough to do that, and to check if the triggering
    >> character is U+FE0E, bu then we fall foul of the composition rule
    >> forward/backward issue again.

    Eli> Which forward rules would conflict with a backward rule triggered by
    Eli> U+FE0E?

All the ones for the non-emoji codepoints that still need to be
composed as emoji sometimes, eg U+261D:

"\N{U+261D}"
"\N{U+261D}\N{U+1F3FB}"
"\N{U+261D}\N{U+1F3FC}"
"\N{U+261D}\N{U+1F3FD}"
"\N{U+261D}\N{U+1F3FE}"
"\N{U+261D}\N{U+1F3FF}"

to which we add:

"\N{U+261D}\N{U+FE0E}"
"\N{U+261D}\N{U+FE0F}"

(and not adding those doesnʼt help).

Robert
-- 

Previous Next

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