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.
Ever hear of Slack? It most definitely allows for multiple reaction emoji. And while I personally loathe Slack, it's (a) A very similar use-case and (b) Not exactly unpopular. I believe phpBB allows multiples as well, although I'm pretty sure it's emoji support isn't Unicode based. With Drupal it depends on what module you use, but only allowing one seems to be strongly correlated with only allowing a choice from a small set.
The other is to say that since it's an experiment, allow any UTF-8 string and let people see what's useful.
I've already explained why I think this is a really bad idea. Ned -- last-call mailing list last-call@xxxxxxxx https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/last-call
