On Mon, 1 Mar 2021, Ned Freed 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,
With precious little evidence to back it up, and no suggestions at all as to
a useful alternative. ...
I can see two possibilities. One is to say it's a single emoji, since
that seems to be what reaction buttons in existing chat applications do.
The other is to say that since it's an experiment, allow any UTF-8 string
and let people see what's useful.
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
