On Sun, Feb 08, 2015 at 05:02:12PM +0000, Peter Oliver wrote: > It seems reasonable to me that we should have a font with emoji > coverage in the default Workstation installation, and I don't think > there is one at the moment. We have google-noto-color-emoji-fonts in > Fedora 22, however, and I'd suggest going with that instead. So... color? In what circumstances will that actually work?

Not to mention that to be actually useful, color support must exist on both sides of the conversation (and the Google solution is not the only one one the market). Probably too early to set it as defaut, at best as a dep of the first Fedora IM client that can make use of it. And then remove the dep when it's no longer experimental-ish

On 10 February 2015 at 14:31, Nicolas Mailhot <nicolas.mailhot(a)laposte.net&gt; wrote: > Not to mention that to be actually useful, color support must exist on > both sides of the conversation (and the Google solution is not the only > one one the market). Sure, this is Google's attempt at encoding colour into fonts, but the characters themselves are ordinary Unicode characters, so interoperability between IM participants doesn't seem to be a particular problem, to me. Emoji look different from phone to phone and from website to website, but people mostly seem to cope fine with that. > Probably too early to set it as defaut, at best as a > dep of the first Fedora IM client that can make use of it. And then remove > the dep when it's no longer experimental-ish Let's not get hung up on the fact that the font I suggested happens to encode colour. I can receive emoji IMs today via Gnome Shell's notifications. I guess the questions I'm asking are: are emoji now sufficiently common that we should include by default a font that can display them? If yes, what is the most suitable font for that? -- Peter Oliver _______________________________________________ fonts mailing list fonts(a)lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/fonts http://fonts.fedoraproject.org/