[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
bug#54562: 28.0.91; Emoji sequence not composed
From: |
Eli Zaretskii |
Subject: |
bug#54562: 28.0.91; Emoji sequence not composed |
Date: |
Tue, 29 Mar 2022 14:44:47 +0300 |
> From: Robert Pluim <rpluim@gmail.com>
> Cc: luangruo@yahoo.com, larsi@gnus.org, 54562@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?
Using Me is fine with me.
> 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?)
That's a separate issue, IMO, and it can be handled via
auto-composition-emoji-eligible-codepoints, I think? We could even
tell users to do that by themselves.
>
> Eli> Btw, for sequences that include a base character and 2 or more
> Eli> diacritics, selecting a font that supports the first diacritic (the
> Eli> one which triggers the composition) might not be enough, since the
> Eli> rest of the diacritics could be absent from that font. Instead, we'd
> Eli> need something like "find the font for each one of them and then use
> Eli> the one which supports the largest subset of them".
>
> font_range currently only has access to the first diacritic, so that
> would be a bigger change. And that subset had better have the same
> size as the number of unique diacritics, otherwise itʼs unlikely to
> work.
We could perhaps avoid the complexity by rewriting the composition
rule for diacritics. Instead of "\\c.\\c^+" with 1-character
look-back, we could have several rules:
"\\c.\\c^\\c^\\c^\\c^" with 4-character look-back
"\\c.\\c^\\c^\\c^+" with 3-character look-back
"\\c.\\c^\\c^+" with 2-character look-back
"\\c.\\c^+" with 1-character look-back
(in that order). I didn't test this, but if it works, maybe it could
solve the problem without any deep changes on the C level.
- bug#54562: 28.0.91; Emoji sequence not composed, (continued)
- bug#54562: 28.0.91; Emoji sequence not composed, Po Lu, 2022/03/26
- bug#54562: 28.0.91; Emoji sequence not composed, Robert Pluim, 2022/03/27
- bug#54562: 28.0.91; Emoji sequence not composed, Po Lu, 2022/03/27
- bug#54562: 28.0.91; Emoji sequence not composed, Robert Pluim, 2022/03/28
- bug#54562: 28.0.91; Emoji sequence not composed, Eli Zaretskii, 2022/03/28
- bug#54562: 28.0.91; Emoji sequence not composed, Robert Pluim, 2022/03/28
- bug#54562: 28.0.91; Emoji sequence not composed, Eli Zaretskii, 2022/03/28
- bug#54562: 28.0.91; Emoji sequence not composed, Robert Pluim, 2022/03/28
- bug#54562: 28.0.91; Emoji sequence not composed, Eli Zaretskii, 2022/03/28
- bug#54562: 28.0.91; Emoji sequence not composed, Robert Pluim, 2022/03/29
- bug#54562: 28.0.91; Emoji sequence not composed,
Eli Zaretskii <=
- bug#54562: 28.0.91; Emoji sequence not composed, Robert Pluim, 2022/03/29
- bug#54562: 28.0.91; Emoji sequence not composed, Eli Zaretskii, 2022/03/29
- bug#54562: 28.0.91; Emoji sequence not composed, Robert Pluim, 2022/03/29
- bug#54562: 28.0.91; Emoji sequence not composed, Eli Zaretskii, 2022/03/29
- bug#54562: 28.0.91; Emoji sequence not composed, Andreas Schwab, 2022/03/28
- bug#54562: 28.0.91; Emoji sequence not composed, Robert Pluim, 2022/03/28
- bug#54562: 28.0.91; Emoji sequence not composed, Andreas Schwab, 2022/03/28
- bug#54562: 28.0.91; Emoji sequence not composed, Eli Zaretskii, 2022/03/28
- bug#54562: 28.0.91; Emoji sequence not composed, Andreas Schwab, 2022/03/28
- bug#54562: 28.0.91; Emoji sequence not composed, Robert Pluim, 2022/03/28