github-starred/gitea
2
0
Fork 0
mirror of https://github.com/go-gitea/gitea.git synced 2026-03-25 16:06:45 -05:00
Code Issues 2.6k Packages Projects Releases 100 Wiki Activity

Css specifies emoji fonts for body text #6422

New Issue
Closed
opened 2025-11-02 06:55:18 -06:00 by GiteaMirror · 10 comments
GiteaMirror commented 2025-11-02 06:55:18 -06:00
Owner
Copy Link

Originally created by @Oreolek on GitHub (Dec 2, 2020).

Description

_base.less specifies the body and headings font family as:

-apple-system,BlinkMacSystemFont,system-ui,Segoe UI,Roboto,Helvetica,Arial, Apple Color Emoji,Segoe UI Emoji,Noto Color Emoji,Twemoji Mozilla, sans-serif

This looks fine on Chrome but I guess you didn't test on Firefox because Firefox prints all numbers as emoji. Everywhere. It's hideous.

Screenshots

1

Also see #12966 because that bug is about the same CSS line.

Originally created by @Oreolek on GitHub (Dec 2, 2020). - Gitea version: 1.13.0 - Can you reproduce the bug at https://try.gitea.io: - [x] Yes: https://try.gitea.io/explore/repos - [ ] No ## Description `_base.less` specifies the body and headings font family as: > -apple-system,BlinkMacSystemFont,system-ui,Segoe UI,Roboto,Helvetica,Arial, **Apple Color Emoji,Segoe UI Emoji,Noto Color Emoji,Twemoji Mozilla,** sans-serif This looks fine on Chrome but I guess you didn't test on Firefox because Firefox prints all numbers as emoji. Everywhere. It's hideous. ## Screenshots ![1](https://user-images.githubusercontent.com/308627/100838679-c9b21100-346a-11eb-8012-e00fed2d5bf8.png) Also see #12966 because that bug is about the same CSS line.
GiteaMirror commented 2025-11-02 06:55:18 -06:00
Author
Owner
Copy Link

@techknowlogick commented on GitHub (Dec 2, 2020):

I am using FF but am not seeing what you see in screenshots, could you confirm the operating system and version of FF you are using?

@techknowlogick commented on GitHub (Dec 2, 2020): I am using FF but am not seeing what you see in screenshots, could you confirm the operating system and version of FF you are using?
GiteaMirror commented 2025-11-02 06:55:19 -06:00
Author
Owner
Copy Link

@Oreolek commented on GitHub (Dec 2, 2020):

Linux, Firefox beta 84.0. It's fine on a Windows virtual machine.

I guess the Noto Color Emoji is the first font installed on my system (I have Arial and Roboto but they're not used for some reason, and they're custom-installed anyway.)

@Oreolek commented on GitHub (Dec 2, 2020): Linux, Firefox beta 84.0. It's fine on a Windows virtual machine. I guess the `Noto Color Emoji` is the first font installed on my system (I have Arial and Roboto but they're not used for some reason, and they're custom-installed anyway.)
GiteaMirror commented 2025-11-02 06:55:19 -06:00
Author
Owner
Copy Link

@itsdeadguy commented on GitHub (Dec 3, 2020):

I'm seeing this as well, similar setup as @Oreolek

@itsdeadguy commented on GitHub (Dec 3, 2020): I'm seeing this as well, similar setup as @Oreolek
GiteaMirror commented 2025-11-02 06:55:19 -06:00
Author
Owner
Copy Link

@silverwind commented on GitHub (Dec 3, 2020):

Is it only numbers? I guess one could use CSS unicode-range to just exclude glyphs 1-9 thought I wonder if there are better solutions.

Also, this kind of smells like a Firefox bug, it should prefer the sans-serif fonts if they are installed.

@silverwind commented on GitHub (Dec 3, 2020): Is it only numbers? I guess one could use [CSS unicode-range](https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Web/CSS/@font-face/unicode-range) to just exclude glyphs 1-9 thought I wonder if there are better solutions. Also, this kind of smells like a Firefox bug, it should prefer the sans-serif fonts if they are installed.
GiteaMirror commented 2025-11-02 06:55:19 -06:00
Author
Owner
Copy Link

@silverwind commented on GitHub (Dec 3, 2020):

Can someone test if putting sans-serif before the emoji fonts solves this?

@silverwind commented on GitHub (Dec 3, 2020): Can someone test if putting `sans-serif` before the emoji fonts solves this?
GiteaMirror commented 2025-11-02 06:55:19 -06:00
Author
Owner
Copy Link

@itsdeadguy commented on GitHub (Dec 3, 2020):

@silverwind that works but it's not the proper way to define a font stack and might break something else down the line, possibly
edit: forgot to say that yes, it's only the numbers

@itsdeadguy commented on GitHub (Dec 3, 2020): @silverwind that works but it's not the proper way to define a font stack and might break something else down the line, possibly edit: forgot to say that yes, it's only the numbers
GiteaMirror commented 2025-11-02 06:55:20 -06:00
Author
Owner
Copy Link

@silverwind commented on GitHub (Dec 3, 2020):

What do you suggest? We can't really wrap all emoji in their own elements after all.

@silverwind commented on GitHub (Dec 3, 2020): What do you suggest? We can't really wrap all emoji in their own elements after all.
GiteaMirror commented 2025-11-02 06:55:20 -06:00
Author
Owner
Copy Link

@itsdeadguy commented on GitHub (Dec 3, 2020):

are they being used elsewhere? this is honestly the first time i noticed them. all other icons i've seen on the web interface seem to come from an icon font (like fontawesome or some such) and are contained in elements

@itsdeadguy commented on GitHub (Dec 3, 2020): are they being used elsewhere? this is honestly the first time i noticed them. all other icons i've seen on the web interface seem to come from an icon font (like fontawesome or some such) and are contained in elements
GiteaMirror commented 2025-11-02 06:55:20 -06:00
Author
Owner
Copy Link

@silverwind commented on GitHub (Dec 3, 2020):

Emoji can of course appear anywhere where there is user content and we might even use them at some point in our own templates. I think it's unavoidable to have those fonts in the font stack.

@silverwind commented on GitHub (Dec 3, 2020): Emoji can of course appear anywhere where there is user content and we might even use them at some point in our own templates. I think it's unavoidable to have those fonts in the font stack.
GiteaMirror commented 2025-11-02 06:55:20 -06:00
Author
Owner
Copy Link

@silverwind commented on GitHub (Dec 3, 2020):

Please try https://github.com/go-gitea/gitea/pull/13834.

@silverwind commented on GitHub (Dec 3, 2020): Please try https://github.com/go-gitea/gitea/pull/13834.
Sign in to join this conversation.
No Branch/Tag Specified
Branches Tags
Labels
Clear labels
$20
$250
$50
$500
backport/done
💎 Bounty
docs-update-needed
good first issue
hacktoberfest
issue/bounty
issue/confirmed
issue/critical
issue/duplicate
issue/needs-feedback
issue/not-a-bug
issue/regression
issue/stale
issue/workaround
lgtm/need 2
modifies/api
modifies/translation
outdated/backport/v1.18
outdated/theme/markdown
outdated/theme/timetracker
performance/bigrepo
performance/cpu
performance/memory
performance/speed
pr/breaking
proposal/accepted
proposal/rejected
pr/wip
pull-request
Mirrored from GitHub Pull Request
 reviewed/wontfix
💰 Rewarded
skip-changelog
status/blocked
topic/accessibility
topic/api
topic/authentication
topic/build
topic/code-linting
topic/commit-signing
topic/content-rendering
topic/deployment
topic/distribution
topic/federation
topic/gitea-actions
topic/issues
topic/lfs
topic/mobile
topic/moderation
topic/packages
topic/pr
topic/projects
topic/repo
topic/repo-migration
topic/security
topic/theme
topic/ui
topic/ui-interaction
topic/ux
topic/webhooks
topic/wiki
type/bug
type/deprecation
type/docs
type/enhancement
type/feature
type/miscellaneous
type/proposal
type/question
type/refactoring
type/summary
type/testing
type/upstream
No Label
Milestone
No items
No Milestone
Projects
Clear projects
No project
Assignees
Clear assignees
GiteaMirror ninjasurge
No Assignees
1 Participants
Notifications
Due Date
No due date set.
Dependencies

No dependencies set.

Reference: github-starred/gitea#6422
Delete Branch "%!s()"

Deleting a branch is permanent. Although the deleted branch may continue to exist for a short time before it actually gets removed, it CANNOT be undone in most cases. Continue?