> 2. Reaction Content-Disposition
>
>
> The rule emoji_sequence is inherited from [Emoji-Seq]. It permits
> one or more bytes to form a single presentation image.
>
> I haven't traced the definition of emoji_sequence, but it seems to be
> essentially a set of Unicode characters that have one or another of
> certain attributes. That is perfectly sensible. But if I understand
> correctly, "emoji_sequence" is a sequence of characters, and you want
> to say "In the UTF-8 encoding, some of these characters may be encoded
> as multiple bytes." or something like that.
Sorry but I'm not understanding what clarity this provides, over the
existing text.
To the extent that your intent is to say that a) this is a subset of
UTF-8, and b) multiple bytes can be used, I think that's built into the
definition of emoji-sequence.
In fact, I had added the one or more text mostly to highlight the the
'sequence' can be only one byte, since 'sequence' would be expected to
be read as meaning multiple.
I’m guessing that Dale is thinking that this is like composed characters, such as creating “á” from “a” plus combining acute accent. The thing is, though, it’s not that. What Dave is describing (perhaps an example in the text would help explain) is the sort of thing that’s unique to emoji, wherein the emojis for man followed by woman followed by boy, each of which is a separate emoji character that would be displayed as it seems, will often be rendered as a single image of a family, just because they’re coded together.
I thunk the text that Dave has is correct — certainly more correct than the suggestion, which would imply character composition rather than the image composition that’s being discussed here.
I don’t think a change to the text will really help, but a “(for example, ...)” might.
Barry
-- last-call mailing list last-call@xxxxxxxx https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/last-call
