> Thank you for the info. They aren't coloured like on the phone, but
> at least I have the symbols now.
> Ah, I just read the mailing list post, so this isn't the colour one.
> I did wonder how the font system would handle that.
It's coming:
https://lwn.net/Articles/564944/
--
Matthew Miller
On 01/17/2014 02:52 AM, Peter Oliver wrote:
In summary, the emoji font used in Android Jelly Bean is currently in
updates-testing; "yum install --enablerepo updates-testing
google-android-emoji-fonts".
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/google-android-emoji-fonts
Thank you for the info.
On Fri, 17 Jan 2014, Petr Viktorin wrote:
On 01/17/2014 02:25 AM, Samuel Sieb wrote:
Assuming you're using Fedora to read your emails, what font do you have
installed that has those glyphs? I can see them on my Android phone,
but not on my Fedora laptop.
You can use Symbola, yum install gdo
On 01/17/2014 02:25 AM, Samuel Sieb wrote:
On 01/16/2014 01:38 PM, Chris Murphy wrote:
On Jan 16, 2014, at 1:41 PM, Matthew Miller
wrote:
The other thing -- getting unicode to include standard symbols -- is
happening. That's why we have 💩 . Yay standards!
Oh man. Change that to 144pt. Is
On 01/16/2014 01:38 PM, Chris Murphy wrote:
On Jan 16, 2014, at 1:41 PM, Matthew Miller wrote:
The other thing -- getting unicode to include standard symbols -- is
happening. That's why we have 💩 . Yay standards!
Oh man. Change that to 144pt. Is it chocolate soft serve with a smile? Or is
On Jan 16, 2014, at 1:41 PM, Matthew Miller wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 16, 2014 at 09:13:03AM -0800, Adam Williamson wrote:
>> Then get the Unicode people sign off on treating your special special
>> characters as text, otherwise it's just an abuse of the system. If all
>> the people who want to do th
On Thu, Jan 16, 2014 at 12:44:12PM -0800, Adam Williamson wrote:
> > Well, it does seem that they're using the Private Use Areas, which are
> > specfically reserved for basically this purpose.
> > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Private_Use_Areas
> Well, kinda. That still only works as long as you ca
On Thu, 2014-01-16 at 12:44 -0800, Adam Williamson wrote:
> On Thu, 2014-01-16 at 15:41 -0500, Matthew Miller wrote:
> > On Thu, Jan 16, 2014 at 09:13:03AM -0800, Adam Williamson wrote:
> > > Then get the Unicode people sign off on treating your special special
> > > characters as text, otherwise i
On Thu, 2014-01-16 at 15:41 -0500, Matthew Miller wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 16, 2014 at 09:13:03AM -0800, Adam Williamson wrote:
> > Then get the Unicode people sign off on treating your special special
> > characters as text, otherwise it's just an abuse of the system. If all
> > the people who want to
On Thu, Jan 16, 2014 at 09:13:03AM -0800, Adam Williamson wrote:
> Then get the Unicode people sign off on treating your special special
> characters as text, otherwise it's just an abuse of the system. If all
> the people who want to do this get together and get a set of agreed upon
> generic icon
On Thu, 2014-01-16 at 18:37 +0100, Nicolas Mailhot wrote:
> Le Jeu 16 janvier 2014 18:13, Adam Williamson a écrit :
> > On Thu, 2014-01-16 at 10:52 -0500, Matthias Clasen wrote:
> >> On Wed, 2014-01-15 at 22:31 -0800, Adam Williamson wrote:
> >> > On Wed, 2014-01-15 at 22:59 -0700, T.C. Hollingswor
On Jan 16, 2014, at 10:13 AM, Adam Williamson wrote:
>
> At least in a toolkit you can implement the kind of thing suggested on
> the Firefox bug, but still - does this look like awesome pseudo-code to
> you?
>
> if $thing is Unicode character;
>render_unicode($thing);
> OH OOPS EXCEPT if $
On Thu, Jan 16, 2014 at 10:52:09 -0500,
Matthias Clasen wrote:
We've been discussing this as an option for rendering symbolic icons in
GTK+ too.
But hopefully you won't be claiming the character set is unicode and
relying on a specific font containing glyphs for bogus code points.
People
Le Jeu 16 janvier 2014 18:13, Adam Williamson a écrit :
> On Thu, 2014-01-16 at 10:52 -0500, Matthias Clasen wrote:
>> On Wed, 2014-01-15 at 22:31 -0800, Adam Williamson wrote:
>> > On Wed, 2014-01-15 at 22:59 -0700, T.C. Hollingsworth wrote:
>> >
>> > > * Another individual thought that all web a
On Thu, 2014-01-16 at 10:52 -0500, Matthias Clasen wrote:
> On Wed, 2014-01-15 at 22:31 -0800, Adam Williamson wrote:
> > On Wed, 2014-01-15 at 22:59 -0700, T.C. Hollingsworth wrote:
> >
> > > * Another individual thought that all web authors are stupid for
> > > wanting to use fancy fonts and tha
On Wed, 2014-01-15 at 22:31 -0800, Adam Williamson wrote:
> On Wed, 2014-01-15 at 22:59 -0700, T.C. Hollingsworth wrote:
>
> > * Another individual thought that all web authors are stupid for
> > wanting to use fancy fonts and that I am wasting my time. (He might
> > be right about that last bit.
Am 16.01.2014 14:55, schrieb Bruno Wolff III:
> Also sort of related is people who use MS 1252 but claim the character set is
> iso-8859-1
blame the firefox developers first and the fools (also Mozilla)
who ignores doctypes and follow HTML5
https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=890478#c
On Wed, Jan 15, 2014 at 22:31:56 -0800,
Adam Williamson wrote:
If anyone overrides font choices in their browser config and wonders why
an increasing number of sites - inc. github, and the wordpress admin
interface - seem to display weird hieroglyphs all over the place, it's
because of this "
On Wed, 2014-01-15 at 22:59 -0700, T.C. Hollingsworth wrote:
> * Another individual thought that all web authors are stupid for
> wanting to use fancy fonts and that I am wasting my time. (He might
> be right about that last bit... :-P)
While we're doing asides, that one *does* get right on my n
19 matches
Mail list logo
