On 3/1/2021 2:13 PM, Ned Freed wrote:
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.
It's a very weak may. I think it's useful to have such an example in
order to make it clear that subsetting is allowed. Although a
reference for the subset would not hurt.
Small additional point:
1. The base-emoji rule is there to give people something to use if
they want a set and don't have one of their own. It has no other role;
it therefore does not matter where it came from.
2. It is intentional that there is no reference provided, because
providing one would merely create an opportunity to debate whether that
was the right set to choose.
3. If it makes folk feel better, let's call it "daves-emojis" or
"random-emojis".
If someone want to claim that somehow one or another emoji in that set
is a problem, they should do that. If someone want to offer a nifty,
superior set for the base-emoji rule, they should do that.
d/
--
Dave Crocker
Brandenburg InternetWorking
bbiw.net
--
last-call mailing list
last-call@xxxxxxxx
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/last-call
