Two things here, speaking as he AD who agreed to sponsor what I thought would be an uncontroversial Experimental document:
1. This is an Experimental draft defining a way to put an (or a few, and maybe the problem is not keeping it to one) emoji symbol in a reply as a reaction to the original message, with the idea that said emoji symbol might be shown in a conveniently streamlined way in the UI. Variations of that, such as putting in arbitrary strings, might also be reasonable experiments, but they’re not this one. I agree with Dave when he says that keeping it simpler is better.
2. My personal image of this, which does relate to existing practice, is based on the iOS Message app. If I get a text message from someone, I can long-press the message and get a popup that offers me six symbols to react with. Those symbols are a heart, a thumb up, a thumb down, a “ha ha”, two exclamation points, and a question mark. Of course, I can compose a text message in response that has anything else I want to say, including a whole long string of emoji... but the “reaction” interface is quite simple and easy. And when someone sends, say, a heart reaction to me, it’s up to me to decide whether that means, “What a great photo!”, or “I’m in love with you!”, or “I’d really like to be your cardiologist.”
I do think that this might be useful, is a worthwhile experiment, won’t cause any real damage to the email system, and should best be kept simpler, rather than being made more complicated.
I think text suggestions that add clarification or make the extent of the experiment clearer are quite reasonable. But I’m puzzled by objections to trying it out to see how well it works.
Barry
On Fri, Feb 26, 2021 at 8:40 PM John R Levine <johnl@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>> 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
-- last-call mailing list last-call@xxxxxxxx https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/last-call
