On 3/1/2021 10:48 PM, Martin J. Dürst wrote:
I'd probably move the "Use of an existing Unicode implementation ..." to the start of the paragraph, because we don't need to scare readers uselessly.
Especially given the discussion that led up to the addition of this paragraph, my own view is that scaring the reader a bit, before telling then of an easy 'fix' is probably a good idea...
I agree with whoever has mentioned it that "*octet* sequences" needs to be removed or replaced. I hope this has already happened.
The concern was to switch from 'byte' to 'octet'. So octet is what the draft now uses.
I also agree that it's important to point out the fact that the same emoji can be interpreted in completely different ways in different cultures or even in the same culture or microculture. I was glad to see that there was some addition about this between -08 and -09, but I think it could (and SHOULD) be stronger. In particular, it should be pointed out that the same emoji can have completely contradictory meanings and offensive or obscene meanings in some cultures.
Cultural sensitivities and misunderstandings are rife. Any communication, of any sort, involving diverse participants, carries the onus of this concern. It is not restricted or specialized to this mechanism.
In terms of nits, I'm really unclear why section 4.1 (Example Message) is where it is.
After the specification content and before the pro forma sections on Security and IANA. Seemed a natural placement.
Also, the hyphen in "possibly-interesting" might be replaced by a space without loss of semantics.
ack. tnx. d/ -- Dave Crocker Brandenburg InternetWorking bbiw.net -- last-call mailing list last-call@xxxxxxxx https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/last-call
