-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 In message <26ACFB13-7850-4880-99C1-B1B1FF9E13EA@xxxxxxxxx>, Eliot Lear <lear=40cisco.com@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> writes > There are really two possibilities: reactions are additive, or > reactions are replacements. I don’t see any real case for > additive, and quite a number for replacements. For instance, one > wants to avoid the case where the same sender is being counted as > multiple +1s, as it were. the case for additive would be simplicity of implementation > Here’s my suggestion: > > When a subsequent message containing a reaction is received from > the same source regarding the same original message, it is said to > have superseded the previous reaction. > > Also: > > A blank reaction, a reaction containing containing no “emoji” as > defined in the ABNF in Section 2, is said to have cleared any > previously received reaction from the source. > > That way, one can change one’s mind or correct a mistake. the notion that multiple emails from a sender can be ordered in time (without any intervening response from the recipient) is, I think, a new concept > I think these suggestions follow the principle of least > astonishment, but I readily admit I could be wrong. I recognize > that this requires a reaction database to implement. Yeah, that’s > a small pain. THAT to me may be the real experiment here. yes indeed ... to do this correctly it's necessary to record details of all previously received messages (whether or not they contain the new feature) if one is to correctly place a newly arrived message (which has the feature) into the correct place in the sequence before deciding whether or not the UI needs to be invoked I suspect many implementations will not bother... so why specify something that is most likely going to be ignored ?? ... now I've never studied how often sequences of email messages are shuffled out of their sending order before delivery, but queuing mechanisms in MTAs tend to speculatively try to deliver each new message and then, if that succeeds, deal with any backlog. Clearly ??? it is not the intent of this document to affect design decisions here. - -- richard Richard Clayton Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety. Benjamin Franklin 11 Nov 1755 -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: PGPsdk version 1.7.1 iQA/AwUBYAQsTd2nQQHFxEViEQI+aACfVRXhNdYxdu7zFVeEYkD9WUzi8CIAmwRR bpDzQJ1yj89j8UImVO1uZwAq =5twE -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- -- last-call mailing list last-call@xxxxxxxx https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/last-call
