On Fri, 26 Feb 2021, Dave Crocker wrote:
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?
cf, the reference to established practice, which is distinguished from
free-form text, which is what you now seem to be proposing
I see a rule allowing a string of emoji, which we've heard is problematic,
and a base-emoji rule which has an unupported assertion that it's five
emoji developed from existing practice, although I'm not aware of any
existing application that uses that set. Do you have a reference? In the
apps I use, the set of emoji responses differs from one device to the next
and is invariably very large, hundreds at least.
(which is odd, > given what stage of processing this draft is in.)
I agree that it was extremely premature to last call this draft.
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
