o Does the presence of the Reaction capability create any
operational problems for recipients?
Broadly speaking, yes: this draft is about expressing meaning using
cultural tokens but it's inherently rooted in a specific cultural
background from a specific time period, which means that it's a product
of the culture you're in, and relevant to the current time period.
These parameters will change according to time and geography, rendering
your proposal obsolete or worse.
Emojis are not interpreted the same way universally, e.g. there are
significant cultural differences in how a thumbs-up emoji might be
perceived in different parts of the world. Although you haven't
specified it in the draft, this is all the more so for the "OK" hand
gesture, which was fine even 20 years ago in "western" culture, but not
so much these days. Zooming back in time, how would things look now if
we had had this draft in the 1990s (let's pretend we had utf8 +
widespread emojis then) and there were replies all over the place with
the OK hand gesture? This wouldn't have matured well.
IOW, there is merit to what you're suggesting here, but if you want to
make this draft more relevant in the longer term to a wider cultural
audience, then either:
1. open it up - to all UTF8 tokens, allowing users to make their own
choices about what reaction would be culturally appropriate to them at
that period in time.
2. restrict it - by abstracting the representation to better-defined
universal tokens, e.g. "happy" / "affirmative-reply", which might be
interpreted today in the US as <smiley-face> / <thumbs-up>, but which
could be reimagined in other cultures in other time periods.
Nick
--
last-call mailing list
last-call@xxxxxxxx
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/last-call
