Yeah even monochrome emoji don't make sense to bold or italicize, imo. We could also regard this as a bug in the font, since this doesn't happen on windows and they're using a similar system for color emoji. iirc they actually provide bold/italic variants (still dubious) but I think ideally twemoji would claim that it supports bold/italic and just implement them as no-ops. That said, it's in the wild, so we should probably just handle this ourselves. From the WR side of things, it's possible we can just temporarily mask out [FontInstanceFlags_SYNTHETIC_BOLD](https://searchfox.org/mozilla-central/source/__GENERATED__/gfx/webrender_bindings/webrender_ffi_generated.h#450) in the [WR RenderColorGlyph Path](https://searchfox.org/mozilla-central/source/gfx/thebes/gfxFont.cpp#2345). (synthetics have changed a bit since I last looked at them, so that's a bit of a guess)
Bug 1600470 Comment 4 Edit History
Note: The actual edited comment in the bug view page will always show the original commenter’s name and original timestamp.
Yeah even monochrome emoji don't make sense to bold or italicize, imo. We could also regard this as a bug in the font, since this doesn't happen on windows and they're using a similar system for color emoji. iirc they actually provide bold/italic variants (still dubious) but I think ideally twemoji would claim that it supports bold/italic and just implement them as no-ops. ~~That said, it's in the wild, so we should probably just handle this ourselves. From the WR side of things, it's possible we can just temporarily mask out [FontInstanceFlags_SYNTHETIC_BOLD](https://searchfox.org/mozilla-central/source/__GENERATED__/gfx/webrender_bindings/webrender_ffi_generated.h#450) in the [WR RenderColorGlyph Path](https://searchfox.org/mozilla-central/source/gfx/thebes/gfxFont.cpp#2345).~~ (synthetics have changed a bit since I last looked at them, so that's a bit of a guess)