[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Better emoji support
From: |
Robert Pluim |
Subject: |
Re: Better emoji support |
Date: |
Mon, 20 Sep 2021 21:30:13 +0200 |
>>>>> On Mon, 20 Sep 2021 21:54:57 +0300, Eli Zaretskii <eliz@gnu.org> said:
>> From: Robert Pluim <rpluim@gmail.com>
>> Cc: kevin.legouguec@gmail.com, emacs-devel@gnu.org
>> Date: Mon, 20 Sep 2021 19:32:23 +0200
>>
Eli> My idea is to trick the font_range function, which verifies that the
Eli> sequence can be composed using a single font, to use an Emoji font
Eli> when it sees something followed by a variation selector, instead of
Eli> the font for the first character in the sequence. For that, the rules
Eli> for Emoji sequences in composition-function-table should be anchored
Eli> on the VS-n codepoints (which I think is a good idea regardless).
>>
>> Weʼd have to raise the lookback limit for composition-function-table
>> rules higher than 3 (maybe only to 4).
Eli> Examples? Not that it's a catastrophe.
>From emoji-zwj-sequences.txt:
1F468 1F3FB 200D 2764 FE0F 200D 1F468 1F3FB ; RGI_Emoji_ZWJ_Sequence
; couple with heart: man, man, light skin tone #
E13.1 [1] (👨🏻❤️👨🏻)
With the current limit you'd get no further than the 1F3FB if you
anchored at FE0F, and miss the 1F468.
>> I guess it reduces the number of entries in
>> composition-function-table, but then you end up with a lot of rules
>> for eg VS-16.
Eli> Why do you think we need to have a lot of such rules? What kind of
Eli> rules did you think about?
For whatever reason, a lot of the sequences in emoji-zwj-sequences.txt
contain codepoints with Emoji_Presentation = No, hence theyʼre
followed by VS-16. As a result, anchoring to VS-16 would produces a
lot of rules for VS-16.
>> emoji-zwj-sequences.txt would result in about 840 rules,
>> with a lot of redundancy, which could be reduced, but I think that can
>> wait until after the zwj sequence stuff goes in.
Eli> I guess I'm missing something because I don't see a problem there.
Perhaps Iʼm worrying too much. It would be a lot of rules to check,
but only when encountering VS-16.
Anyway, we can measure the difference, if any, once we have the base
implementation and Someone™ implements the VS-16 anchored version (it
would only be a dozen lines of awk, I think).
Robert
--
- Re: Better emoji support, (continued)
- Re: Better emoji support, Eli Zaretskii, 2021/09/20
- Re: Better emoji support, Robert Pluim, 2021/09/20
- Re: Better emoji support, Eli Zaretskii, 2021/09/20
- Re: Better emoji support, Robert Pluim, 2021/09/20
- Re: Better emoji support, Eli Zaretskii, 2021/09/20
- Re: Better emoji support, Eli Zaretskii, 2021/09/20
- Re: Better emoji support, Robert Pluim, 2021/09/20
- Re: Better emoji support, Eli Zaretskii, 2021/09/20
- Re: Better emoji support, Robert Pluim, 2021/09/20
- Re: Better emoji support, Eli Zaretskii, 2021/09/20
- Re: Better emoji support,
Robert Pluim <=
- Re: Better emoji support, Eli Zaretskii, 2021/09/20
- Re: Better emoji support, Robert Pluim, 2021/09/20
- Re: Better emoji support, Robert Pluim, 2021/09/20
- Re: Better emoji support, Eli Zaretskii, 2021/09/20
- Re: Better emoji support, Jean-Christophe Helary, 2021/09/17
- Re: Better emoji support, Daniel Martín, 2021/09/17
- Re: Better emoji support, Robert Pluim, 2021/09/17
- Re: Better emoji support, Stephen Berman, 2021/09/17
- Re: Better emoji support, Eli Zaretskii, 2021/09/17
- Re: Better emoji support, Stephen Berman, 2021/09/17