So it looks like we need to fix Mac and Windows, but Linux is OK.
That's actually not true. Surprisingly I have at least one Linux box where emoticons are broken. Is is running Debian testing. That said I realized that it can be a bit hard to see this if one is upgrading from 5.0.7 as it seems to work then but after shutting the browser down and restarting it no emoticons are shown. (This reminded me at one of the failure modes of our start script. :/)
So it looks like we need to fix Mac and Windows, but Linux is OK.
That's actually not true. Surprisingly I have at least one Linux box where emoticons are broken. Is is running Debian testing. That said I realized that it can be a bit hard to see this if one is upgrading from 5.0.7 as it seems to work then but after shutting the browser down and restarting it no emoticons are shown. (This reminded me at one of the failure modes of our start script. :/)
You're right, this happened to me. Once I shutdown the browser and started it again, the Emojis were no longer available.
So it looks like we need to fix Mac and Windows, but Linux is OK.
That's actually not true. Surprisingly I have at least one Linux box where emoticons are broken. Is is running Debian testing. That said I realized that it can be a bit hard to see this if one is upgrading from 5.0.7 as it seems to work then but after shutting the browser down and restarting it no emoticons are shown. (This reminded me at one of the failure modes of our start script. :/)
You're right, this happened to me. Once I shutdown the browser and started it again, the Emojis were no longer available.
So it looks like we need to fix Mac and Windows, but Linux is OK.
That's actually not true. Surprisingly I have at least one Linux box where emoticons are broken. Is is running Debian testing. That said I realized that it can be a bit hard to see this if one is upgrading from 5.0.7 as it seems to work then but after shutting the browser down and restarting it no emoticons are shown. (This reminded me at one of the failure modes of our start script. :/)
You're right, this happened to me. Once I shutdown the browser and started it again, the Emojis were no longer available.
Thanks, this is commit c885551e69ca5043d0af0de6940e250968e6f7e5, 7aa3abf90371fb82518edf5d54e862e91744c97b and ee6fd02653fc0e396bee5daa034bd00be890ccb5 on master/maint-5.5/hardened-builds.
Trac: Status: needs_review to closed Resolution: N/Ato fixed
No NotoEmoji-Regular.ttf in TBB 5.5.1 for Win, no emoji.
It appears that the Emoji font I add to the whitelist for Windows, Segoe UI Emoji, is not always available on Windows 7. So there are a couple of alternatives:
Whitelist Segoe UI Symbol instead. This covers a lot of Emoji characters, although they are monochrome.
Whitelist both. This of course allows Windows 7 and earlier to be distinguished from later versions, but there are other ways to distinguish these fonts.
Bundle NotoEmoji-Regular.ttf with Windows and remove Segoe UI Emoji from the whitelist. This makes the Emoji fonts identical on all versions of Windows. The Noto Emojis don't look the quite the same as the native Windows fonts.
I'm inclined to go for the third option. Does anyone else have an opinion?
Trac: Status: closed to reopened Resolution: fixed toN/A
No NotoEmoji-Regular.ttf in TBB 5.5.1 for Win, no emoji.
It appears that the Emoji font I add to the whitelist for Windows, Segoe UI Emoji, is not always available on Windows 7. So there are a couple of alternatives:
Windows 8 seems to be affected as well.
Whitelist Segoe UI Symbol instead. This covers a lot of Emoji characters, although they are monochrome.
Whitelist both. This of course allows Windows 7 and earlier to be distinguished from later versions, but there are other ways to distinguish these fonts.
Bundle NotoEmoji-Regular.ttf with Windows and remove Segoe UI Emoji from the whitelist. This makes the Emoji fonts identical on all versions of Windows. The Noto Emojis don't look the quite the same as the native Windows fonts.
I'm inclined to go for the third option. Does anyone else have an opinion?
Hm, this is pretty unfortunate especially as we probably want to test whether the bundling mechanism is working on Windows as well properly. But, yes, I think we could try that route. I am not really inclined to wait for that for 5.5.1, though, as #18169 (moved) and #18168 (moved) are more important and I would like to see some testing with this approach.
Hm, this is pretty unfortunate especially as we probably want to test whether the bundling mechanism is working on Windows as well properly. But, yes, I think we could try that route. I am not really inclined to wait for that for 5.5.1, though, as #18169 (moved) and #18168 (moved) are more important and I would like to see some testing with this approach.
Which means I think we back out the Windows change until we have a proper solution and ship 5.5.1 only with OS X and Linux emoji support fixing the Windows related bug in the next stable release.
It appears that the Emoji font I add to the whitelist for Windows, Segoe UI Emoji, is not always available on Windows 7. So there are a couple of alternatives:
Whitelist Segoe UI Symbol instead. This covers a lot of Emoji characters, although they are monochrome.
Whitelist both. This of course allows Windows 7 and earlier to be distinguished from later versions, but there are other ways to distinguish these fonts.
Bundle NotoEmoji-Regular.ttf with Windows and remove Segoe UI Emoji from the whitelist. This makes the Emoji fonts identical on all versions of Windows. The Noto Emojis don't look the quite the same as the native Windows fonts.
I'm inclined to go for the third option. Does anyone else have an opinion?
Isn't a long term goal that the platform can't be detected? That points to 3.
That's unfortunate. It was available on the Windows 8 machine I used for testing, but it sounds like this cannot be relied on.
[...]
3. Bundle NotoEmoji-Regular.ttf with Windows and remove Segoe UI Emoji from the whitelist. This makes the Emoji fonts identical on all versions of Windows. The Noto Emojis don't look the quite the same as the native Windows fonts.
I'm inclined to go for the third option. Does anyone else have an opinion?
Hm, this is pretty unfortunate especially as we probably want to test whether the bundling mechanism is working on Windows as well properly. But, yes, I think we could try that route. I am not really inclined to wait for that for 5.5.1, though, as #18169 (moved) and #18168 (moved) are more important and I would like to see some testing with this approach.
And here is the resulting build (I confirmed that the Noto Emoji font is used for emoji characters on a Windows machine. I don't expect there to be a difference on different Windows versions, as I am bundling the font.):
https://people.torproject.org/~arthuredelstein/downloads/18172-builds
The emoji in Linux works again after this update, but they're terrible. Most of the faces at http://apps.timwhitlock.info/emoji/tables/unicode#emoji-modal look like PacMan ghosts and their facial expressions aren't identifiable at typical font sizes on the web.
from what I can discern, the decisions that Tor Browser makes related to what it whitelists might be pulled upstream into Mozilla (currently only manually) since they are adding font.system.whitelist in Firefox 52. here's some talk about it: https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1121643
I'm not sure which whitelisted font allows some of these to work.
It might be good to find a good font candidate to whitelist in the Linux and Windows TBB to allow it to render more unicode characters than the current fonts allow. I haven't done any tests on the Mac TBB.
Actually, an even better example is happening right on this page. I'm not able to view the "bold" "italic" "link" or any other icons above the box that I'm typing in. Also, another person pointed out that the "reply to comment" icon to the right of every comment on this page is blank. https://trac.torproject.org/projects/tor/ticket/18860
Since there is already a ticket for emoji stuff for GNU+Linux, would it make sense to change the title of this ticket to a Windows specific problem, since the solution is going to be different than it would be for GNU+Linux? If so, I can remove my GNU+Linux related posts in this ticket and move them to 18364.
Can this ticket please get some love from someone?
I feel like it would be better to have the TBB for linux bundled with basic needed fonts, even if that makes the ROM slightly bigger, instead of leaving them broken. This is a basic feature that a browser should provide, the ability to render characters properly, especially characters that have been standardized for decades, like the multiplication sign: https://www.fileformat.info/info/unicode/char/2715/browsertest.htm
What are the blockers to allowing multiplication signs and other common characters render properly? I'm not trying to be rude, but it has been over three years since I've contributed to this issue.