--On Tuesday, 02 March, 2021 15:48 +0900 "Martin J. Dürst"
<duerst@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>...
>> Note:
>> The "emoji" token looks simple. It isn't.
>> Implementors are well-advised not to assume that emoji
>> sequences are trivial to parse or validate. Among other
>> concerns, an implementation of the Unicode Character
>> Database is required. An emoji is more than a stand-in for a
>> simple alternation of characters. Similarly, one emoji
>> sequence is not interchangeable with, or equivalent to,
>> another one, and comparisons require detailed understanding
>> of the relevant Unicode mechanisms. Use of an existing
>> Unicode implementation will typically prove extremely
>> helpful, as will an understanding of the error modes that may
>> arise from a chosen implementation.
>
> I think this is a valuable addition. I was following the
> discussion for a long time, and wanted to point to the Unicode
> implementations already existing out there and the high
> probability that a mailer would use one of these, but Ned
> finally pointed this out ahead of me.
Martin,
A question about the above. When I first read the paragraph,
"implementation of the Unicode Character Database" struck me as
strange, partially because I don't know what implementing a
database means. I would have thought the better wording would
have been closer to "implementation of the rules of UTS#51 and
the associated tables". Do you agree? If you (or others who
are deeply steeped in Unicode) do not see a problem with the
existing text, I'm happy to just let it go.
>...
> It may also be helpful
> to point out that if somebody just implements base-emojis or
> any other smallish set of emoji, they don't have to go to
> great lengths in their implementation efforts.
I would favor that but do not think it is critical either.
thanks,
john
--
last-call mailing list
last-call@xxxxxxxx
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/last-call
