On Sat, Feb 27, 2021, at 4:50 PM, John C Klensin wrote:
Take "should free Unicode text be allowed in reactions?" as anexample and put aside the issue that "text" does not have auniform meaning in Unicode discussions. The I-D now says "no"even though it may not be easy to figure that out. If the specis followed strictly, then I think John (and some others,including me on odd-numbered days) are not only predicting itwill fail, but that it will probably fail badly enough that theIETF would be wasting the community's time by publishing it.However, put a sentence in somewhere indicating that the choiceor all of what UTS#51 allows and only what it allows as an EmojiSequence (UTS#51, version 13.1, ED-17) is known to becontroversial and one in Section 7 asking for feedback onwhether users insisted that implementations be more or lessrestrictive (and whether more or less) would, I think, bothsolve the problem, considerably improve the experiment, and letus move forward.
I am sincerely unsure what this paragraph means.
Do you mean that you (sometimes) feel that disallowing (for example) the reaction "Nice!" (that sequence of five characters) is likely to doom the proposal? Or are you saying that the complexity of validation of the part-content is too high, and that it will too often be done wrong?
As for the proposed remedy, I think I'd need to read more about the way that experimental docs work before I had a clue as to its appropriateness, so I'll leave that to others for now.
--
rjbs
-- last-call mailing list last-call@xxxxxxxx https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/last-call
