> On 25 Feb 2021, at 19:45, Adam Roach <adam@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > On 2/25/21 12:34, Patrik Fältström wrote: >> >>>> On 25 Feb 2021, at 19:29, Adam Roach <adam@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >>> >>> The considerations for these display elements need to be exactly as complex as the display considerations for Unicode in email bodies, and no more. >> Then why does it not have the same characteristics as any mime body part with Unicode content? >> >> It is exactly where the boundary is between code points that are allowed and not you have the key issues here. >> >> The draft DO refer to very specific rules that are to be followed. >> >> If it was not, I would not be as worried. > > > So you'd be okay if the document just removed the codepoint restrictions and instead limited it to one line which is intended to convey a pictographic reaction? That seems like a reasonable compromise, as it would allow popular reactions like "¯\_(ツ)_/¯" and "(╯°□°)╯︵ ┻━┻" without needing a later revision. Yes. Given you say what you said, same issues as any text (directionality, zwj, ...). It’s the reference to a limitation of what can go in that field and not which I claim (and others obviously disagree) is neither easy to parse, nor stable enough for IETF. Patrik > > /a > -- last-call mailing list last-call@xxxxxxxx https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/last-call
