In article <e324f2c4-923c-e1a1-1df4-c65993835f08@xxxxxxxx> you write: >-=-=-=-=-=- > >John, > >On 2/25/2021 9:30 PM, John C Klensin wrote: >>> This is not like the use of non-ASCII characters in domain >>> names, because reactions are not used as resource locators. >>> If a visually confusable emoji is used to replace another, the >>> reader is not misled into arriving at the wrong resource. >> No, but the user may be misled. > >And they may not. In every reaction scheme I've seen, from Twitter to Zoom to Slack, you pick a reaction, and it sends what you told it to send. It's up to the user sending the reaction to anticipate what the other party will think of it. I cannot imagine why we would make this any different. Send what the user says to send. At this point I don't see any compelling reason to limit the reactions to Unicode emoji and exclude text reactions like :-( R's, John -- last-call mailing list last-call@xxxxxxxx https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/last-call
