--On Monday, 01 March, 2021 15:58 +1100 Bron Gondwana <brong@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Sat, Feb 27, 2021, at 09:54, John Levine wrote: >> At this point I don't see any compelling reason to limit the >> reactions to Unicode emoji and exclude text reactions like :-( > > I can see the compelling reason, and it's because Dave is > trying to define a vespa here, not a monster truck. > Every attempt to bolt on more wheels, spoilers and giant > chrome bumpers just because somebody might need them takes > what was a very simple experiment and turns it back into the > everything spec. Bron, I agree with the principle and share your belief that what was intended was an extremely modest and focused extension. Certainly that is what the discussion that I think started in September was about and I don't recall any discussion that would have led to even a medium-sized limousine. However, the specification as now written incorporates all or UTS#51, a long (very long if the required supporting tables are considered( specification of what several people outside the IETF have described as a Unicode-based picture language of very high complexity that is necessary to understand. It defines emoji combining and qualifying characters and has specific rules about whether consecutive emoji code point combine into a single graphic image or remain separate and whether, and how, that is separated by ZWJ, and so on, including multiple types of combining sequences each with its own rules. Incorporating UTS#51 that way probably should require text about, for example, whether validation is required, Being to use what is permitted requires very different models of the Ux than what I think most of us were anticipating and what is justified by the type of current practice that has been pointed to to justify this experiment. That situation exists with draft-crocker-inreply-react-09, with no specification, a definition that essentially amounts to "anything that UTS#51 allows is permitted and anything it does not is prohibited". Continuing with your metaphor, I don't see a monster truck. I see either that Vespa on which someone has removed the rear wheel and tyre and replaced them with someone over a meter in diameter without otherwise changing the vehicle or someone having somehow attached a trailer hitch to the rear fender and a six-horse trailer to the hitch. Neither is likely to work well unless people implement what they think the spec was intended to say rather than what it does say. I'm trying to restore the possibility of functional Vespa-ness by making the question of how much of UTS#51 a sensible implementation would use, and what adjustments need to be made, part of the experiment. If we don't do that, the spec is due for a trip to the mechanic to see if there is a way to cut the horse trailer off and reinstall a proper-sized rear wheel. Certainly some of the changes that have been proposed would take us in the monster truck direction. And, as Dave has suggested, I think approving a simple, Vespa-sized, extension and then seeing how much of the rest is needed. But the current specification, whether intentionally or not, does not meet that goal of simplicity. best, john -- last-call mailing list last-call@xxxxxxxx https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/last-call
