Re: Emoji fonts in Debian [WAS:] Re: How to NOT automatically mount a specific partition of an external device?
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.
Reply to: