Skip to content
This repository has been archived by the owner on Sep 11, 2024. It is now read-only.

Ignore VS16 char in RTE #1458

Merged
merged 1 commit into from
Oct 11, 2017
Merged

Ignore VS16 char in RTE #1458

merged 1 commit into from
Oct 11, 2017

Conversation

pafcu
Copy link
Contributor

@pafcu pafcu commented Oct 11, 2017

Signed-off-by: Stefan Parviainen <pafcu@iki.fi>
@lukebarnard1
Copy link
Contributor

lukebarnard1 commented Oct 11, 2017

It seems that @richvdh has been in this area recently (joypixels/emojione#320) and apparently the issue should have been resolved in emojione 2.2.7 (the same version that we depend on).

Also, I wonder if we should be worrying about VS 15 as well:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Variant_form_(Unicode)#Variation_Selectors_block

@pafcu
Copy link
Contributor Author

pafcu commented Oct 11, 2017

@lukebarnard1 So it seems that there is either still a bug in emojione, or an old version of emojione is being used for some reason. Because current develop does not seem to work correctly (test e.g. by copy-pasting symbols from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dingbat#Emoji)

VS15 should definitely also be handled, but that is a separate issue. Similarly the per-symbol default presentation is ignored and everything seems to be treated as emoji-by-default (which, however, may be an acceptable simplification in order to reduce user confusion even if it breaks the unicode spec).

@pafcu
Copy link
Contributor Author

pafcu commented Oct 11, 2017

Finally it seems like the fix in Emojione is not the one we needed. There are no longer the duplicate entries (as reported in joypixels/emojione#320) but the VS16 variant also does not map to the same character as the variant-less version, but to the one with the variant appended. I think this is actually "correct" in the sense that for eg. U+2709 (the envelop) the default presentation is text, so U+2709 U+FE0F (emoji version) should look different / be separate from the variantless version.

Therefore I think that Emojione is not strictly wrong here, and that the proposed change here is the correct way to go without making some fairly large changes to how emojies are handled.

@lukebarnard1
Copy link
Contributor

WFM, worst case this will affect the display of other emoji.

LGTM

Sign up for free to subscribe to this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in.
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

2 participants