Hello Dave, others,
On 02/03/2021 22:20, Dave Crocker wrote:
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.
If you don't understand the difference between 'byte'/'octet' and 'code
point', I recommend careful reading e.g. of https://www.w3.org/TR/charmod/.
Fortunately, Ned understood what John and me and others were complaining
about, and we are on the right way here.
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.
Well, yes, but cultural sensitivity and the awareness for it in the case
of images (in particular hand gestures) is quite a bit different from text.
First, it's very easy for humans to intuitively think that while people
using different languages obviously would need different text, everybody
should understand something like a "thumbs up".
Second, the chances for completely opposite or offensive meanings are
significantly bigger in particular for hand gestures.
Third, this draft explicitly proposes hand gestures that have offensive
meanings in some regions of the world, as opposed to just allowing such
gestures as part of a general repertoire.
Fourth, it has been reported quite recently that some applications
actually change the display of some of their reactions, for exactly the
reason brought up here. As far as I understand, the draft doesn't
propose any such thing (which may be okay as such). This situation is
akin to a security issue with a known remedy where a draft would just
talk about it in vague terms.
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.
I was not asking about Section 4, for the placement of which you give
good arguments above. I was specifically asking about Subsection 4.1.
This is an example message showing *syntax*, unfathomably (at least to
me) sandwiched between two (*) text pieces about *semantics* and usage.
(*) 1) the part of Section 4 that probably should be its own subsection
before 4.1, and 2) Subsection 4.2.
Regards, Martin.
--
last-call mailing list
last-call@xxxxxxxx
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/last-call
