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

Previous Next

Full log

Message #177 received at 63731 <at> debbugs.gnu.org (full text, mbox):

From: Eli Zaretskii <eliz <at> gnu.org>
To: Robert Pluim <rpluim <at> gmail.com>
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 19:39:37 +0300

> From: Robert Pluim <rpluim <at> gmail.com>
> Cc: 63731 <at> debbugs.gnu.org,  steven <at> stebalien.com
> 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:
> 
>     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}"

Couldn't we put these in the slots of #x1F3FB..#x1F3FF instead, as
backward rules?  As long as we don't have a forward rule starting with
#x261D, we could have backward rules for it triggered by #x1F3Fx and
#xFE0x, right?

Previous Next

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