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.