| ▲ | shirro 3 days ago | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Terminal emulators are caught between emulating terminals and teletypes of the past and implementing new features and unicode is one of the struggles. The way most terminals and wcwidth handle the width of characters sometimes is not correct but preserving behavior is important for compatibility. It is possible that its just not worth trying to handle all unicode perfectly in a terminal. Its pretty good for legacy stuff and sysadmin. We have other ways of doing things remotely like html that might be more appropriate for ZWJ emoji and languages with complicated text shaping/rendering. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ▲ | kevin_thibedeau 3 days ago | parent | next [-] | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
For glyph width, there are codepoints classified as ambiguous width. These are mostly narrow pre-emoji symbols that have been extended with an alternate emoji representation. There's no way to predict what their width will be, even with explicit variation selectors which might just be ignored. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ▲ | anthk 2 days ago | parent | prev [-] | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
It does it fine with GNU Unifont and raw XTerm and others. I just had issues with RXVT and clones. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||