On Sun 28 Nov 2021 at 11:54:16 (-0800), Charlie Gibbs wrote:
> On Sun Nov 28 11:38:54 2021 Celejar wrote:
> > On Sat, 27 Nov 2021 22:58:58 -0600 David Wright wrote:
> >> On Sat 27 Nov 2021 at 07:22:45 (-0600), John Hasler wrote:
> >>> Celejar writes:
> >>>
> >>>> I'm curious: do most users of Debian on the desktop (who use MUA
> >>>> software, as opposed to webmail via a browser) have such a font
> >>>> installed, or do they see tofu?
> >>>
> >>> I use Gnus. I've never manually installed any emoji fonts
> >>> (or any other fonts) but I see the glyphs, not the tofu.
> >>
> >> Questions like this remind me how little I understand font handling.
> >> I read mail in mutt in xterm in fvwm in X, currently in buster, and
> >> I see four glyphs. If I save the email in a file, then I see the
> >
> > ...
> >
> >> I wrote /four/ glyphs, but it sounds as if Celejar sees three,
> >> the first one being coloured with some sort of skin tone. My
> >> second glyph, 🏻, is a half-tone box with three lines of dots
> >> inside, of 3, 4 and 3 dots.
> >
> > I assume that the reason I see three and you see four is that the
> > first one (of my three) consists of a combination of the basic
> > "blond haired person" glyph plus a "light skin tone" modifier glyph,
> > which are presumably ideally supposed to be displayed together:
> >
> > https://emojiterra.com/blond-haired-person-light-skin-tone/
>
> Am I the only one who sees the irony in all this? We're living
> in an era where the so-called "woke" generation is taking offence
> at every perceived slight or sign of racial or sexual discrimination,
> however minor. Yet these same people are eagerly leaving behind the
> originally all-text form of e-mail - which has no glyphs that portray
> such differences - in favour of graphics that are gleefully being used
> to highlight them. Why is nobody being "triggered" by this?
That assumes that I look at the emojis and have a clue what they
mean. I'm really only interested in this conversation in order to get
a more complete repertoire of Unicode displayed correctly. If you were
to look at my personal quick-view chart of Unicode, I think you'd see
that emojis are distinctly lacking. Currently I print:
ranges = [range(0x20, 0x520, 32),
range(0x2000, 0x2be0, 32),
range(0x2e00, 0x2e40, 32),
range(0x3000, 0x3020, 32),]
Some of these look as if they're combining forms (like the accents
and squiggles, for want of a better word), but I've not found an
opportunity to see clearly whether combining forms actually combine,
before this. (Ie, the result would be an obvious change in glyphs.)
Cheers,
David.
