>> There were Internationalization issues raised by John Klensin and Patrik >> Fältström that need to bbe addressed, and I haven’t seen a response to them >> yet. The primary one involves cross-cultural understanding of the meaning of >> emoji symbols, and, thus, weather it makes sense to use the emoji symbols >> themselves as protocol elements, rather than defining specific protocol >> elements and letting the implementation select emoji based on regional/cultural >> custom. > > Copying the last-call list, to permit public participation in this Discuss Thank you. > For clarity and accuracy, a reference to prior online activity should point to the specific activity that is meant, rather than leaving the reader -- and, of course, worse, the author -- to guess what the reference is to, as I am having to do here. And the guessing is made more complicated when there are multiple possible venues, as there almost always is. Note that neither John nor Patrick posted comments on the react- draft to the last-call mailing list. I'm sorry; this is my error: I hadn't noticed when I discussed this with John and Patrik, but it was posted to the IESG, and not to a public list. I will ask them to engage in this thread. The substantive part -- at least, the part that I think needs to be discussed -- is this: >>> If people want to send a "positive reaction" or "agree", that >>> is not in all cultures using the same graphical symbol. My >>> point was that if there was to be a "positive reaction" to be >>> sent back as a response to an email, then that signal is to be >>> sent back, but then what is graphically displayed might have >>> to be different depending on culture. >>> >>> My example was the checkmark and x which has different meaning >>> in Sweden and USA. The opposite meaning actually. >> >> To be sure I understand what you wrote -- because it may be >> important elsewhere even if not to this spec -- if one starts giving >> names to emoji that are not their standard Unicode names, e.g., >> "agree", then one should consider specifying alternative code points >> and have some words about locale. > > Correct. > > If you take the "check mark" U+2713. That means in Sweden "Error" or > "wrong". If you for example correct a series of questions in Sweden, > the check mark means "zero points", "wrong" or "error". An "x" or "R" > means "correct". > > In the US and Canada I have seen "check marks" meaning "ok", "done", > "correct". My response to that was this: > That's an interesting wrinkle, which might speak to having (at least > as an option) a verbal reaction, which could be rendered with an emoji > character chosen within cultural context. I know, for example, that the common "thumb up" gesture is offensive in Iran, and the common gesture of making a circle with thumb and index finger is "OK" in the U.S. and offensive in Brazil. When someone clicks a "thumb up" in, say, Facebook, Facebook doesn't store an emoji symbol as a reaction: it stores an indicator of a positive reaction, and displays it in the UI as a symbol... and that display choice can be localized. I wonder, then, if it doesn't make more sense to send reactions as defined protocol elements that can be localized, and a "Yes!" reaction could show as a thumb-up emoji in locales where that's appropriate, and as something else elsewhere. Barry -- last-call mailing list last-call@xxxxxxxx https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/last-call
