On Fri, 26 Feb 2021, Dave Crocker wrote:
It only works if there's a small controlled vocabulary, but it doesn't
matter what the vocabulary is. There are over 3500 Unicode emoji
and exponentially more if you add modifiers like skin tone, so that's
not very controlled either.
If there is, really, no limit to what can be put there, then there is,
really, infinite variety possible for every message, in terms of the physical
characteristics of what needs displaying.
Well, we can limit it to strings of Unicode.
If the vocabulary is merely graphic symbols, a natural working set will
develop among a set of users, even if one isn't imposed.
:-) :-( ;-) ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
There is a difference between attempting to specify the details of UI
behavior, here, versus ignoring potential effects upon such designs.
There is also a difference between offering flexibility just because we can,
versus offering it because it has clear utility.
I'd flip it around. What reason do we have to believe that any particular
restricted vocabulary that we might define would be useful to users we
don't know and who may not even speak any language we speak?
I suppose we could say that it might work better if a group of people have
a shared set of reaaction symbols but I don't see anything we can say that
wouldn't be vague and obvious.
Regards,
John Levine, johnl@xxxxxxxxx, Taughannock Networks, Trumansburg NY
Please consider the environment before reading this e-mail. https://jl.ly
--
last-call mailing list
last-call@xxxxxxxx
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/last-call
